There is pressure for it to not kill hosts before they are able to infect others though.

Sure but that’s not a problem solvable at an individual level— we need structural changes to help keep kids healthy. Long recess, more (non-traumatic) physical education, healthy school lunches, walkable cities, shorter workdays, regulations on advertising sugary foods to kids, reduction in environmental toxins that contribute to asthma, safe bike infrastructure, subsidies on fresh fruits and vegetables, etc. all would have an impact. But right now most obesity public health policy seems to “eat fewer calories dummy” followed up by a shocked pikachu face when that seems to have no impact.

It’s actually much more complex than CICO. Your metabolism shifts as you lose weight and at a certain point it gets harder and harder to lose each additional pound. If you gain weight back (as most people do) your metabolism doesn’t have a corresponding increase so weight cycling actually results in more weight gain over time than making no changes. The hormones that control hunger are also affected by weight cycling and you can get hungrier the more you crash diet and it is HARD to do anything else competently while experiencing hunger pains. So, it’s not really simple math, there are so many more variables at play than simply calories in and calories out.

To your second point, there’s a limit to how many boys born in this period can be named after their fathers since many sons already have older brother named after their father.