The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[kukushkin88]

It will be another one he walks away from pops, we all know it.

I’ve never walked away from discussing the issues raised in this thread. As I’ve said before, the only reason why I’m here is because I believe there’s merit in discussing these things.

This isn’t a bad analysis, for sure it’s highly possible/likely that not all 120,000 are attributed directly to what the government, lots of them are though.

https://fullfact.org/health/austerity-120000-unnecessary-deaths/

Apologies to Rick for the approach I took in that sequence of posts.

Sometimes, I am sure you just find a nice juicy headline and don't read the article at all.

Extracts from this document that"proves your point"

 Restrictions on health and social care spending is one of a number of possible explanations for this, and the findings need to be treated with a bit of caution.


 “There was a report this week, we are getting 120,000 unnecessary deaths every year in this country as a direct result of the austerity.”

Val McDermid, 16 November 2017 (isn't Val a fiction writer???)


While lower growth in health and social care spending since 2010 may be behind the increase in deaths, these findings should be treated with caution as the research doesn’t prove this is the case. Reduced spending is one of a number of possible explanations for the results.


Older people accounted for more of these additional deaths, with deaths at care homes and at home contributing most to the estimated additional deaths. Deaths in hospital were lower than expected. The authors put this down to greater pressures on social care spending, but also a drive to move more patients reaching the end of possible health treatments out of hospital.
Lets think about this one a bit. Deaths were actually LOWER in hospitals. People sent off to care home, where they are looked after by Care Assistants, not Nurses. Hmm, what do we think the outcome is likely to be?


I struggle to see your headline 120,000 additional deaths due to austerity being in any way substantiated by this article..even the article questions its own numbers!

NEXT!

It goes without saying that I don’t think you understand. I am happy to try and do a better job of explaining if you’d like?

Carry on Rover, so far you haven't convinced anyone.

Oh, please keep up with the condescending put downs, it highlights your nice guy attributes.

So while I have been golfing today, more insults chucked, but as expected, still no reply to prove your point. You are right, it is insulting to be compared to you and your poor attempts at building yourself up, with F all to back it up, unless you have read it somewhere.

That study is out of date and we no longer need to use projections.  

There has been a marked fall in mortality improvements over the last 5 years, and the 40 year trend in mortality improvements may well have gone as far as reversing.  You can't know the real trend for sure because of variance; for instance a harsh winter can cause a spike in deaths etc.

I think it is a safe assumption to state that austerity has caused some of these excess deaths, but it certainly isn't all of them.  There has been excess deaths from flu in, from memory, 3 of the last 5 years, which was put down to a fairly ineffective flu vaccine for those years, and this has certainly caused some of the excess deaths.  You can see that austerity is a good candidate for a significant number of these deaths, by looking in more detail at the split of mortality improvements.  Those at the lower end of the social scale have suffered much more from the change in the trend in mortality improvements with those in higher social classes happily bowling along and experiencing improved mortality rates as if austerity never happened (the Jacob Rees Mogg, Boris de Pfeffel Johnson and Nigel Farage types have less reason to give a shit about the downside*).  

So I think it is safe to say that austerity has caused a significant number of excess deaths, but it isn't safe to say it caused 120,000 (or 90,000 or 75,000 or whatever today's number of the day is).

* As an aside a life insurer has to be careful reflecting the change in trend, as richer people tend to have bigger insurances, so their mortality is way more important to an insurer than the increased mortality suffered by the poor downtrodden Brexit party voters.

No doubt Kush will lay claim to this, so thanks for spoiling my fun Doobs.

He will then say it was so obvious, that's why he never bothered to reply to such a simpleton.

We know the truth though.

I thought Doobs summed it up well.

And the case for the prosecution rests.

BOOOOM!

Good night.

It would be fun to see you in action as a lawyer 😂. Good night.

I have a few issues with that "study", and don't think it as unbiassed as you think (and lol at unbiassed economists and nobel prize winners).   

Here is an unbiassed mortality study.  Note that it doesn't really assign blame, just details a bit of what is happening.   

https://www.actuaries.org.uk/system/files/field/document/CMI%20WP105%20v01%202018-03-01%20-%20CMI%20Mortality%20Projections%20Model%20CMI_2017%20Briefing%20Note.pdf

But having spoken to people who follow mortality closer than I do, there are a few hypotheses floating round.   

Smoking rates dropped markedly for a long time, but a lot of the benefit from that has happened already, and there is some talk that the female rates of improvement are lower as that population took up smoking later in the last century (there used to be much more significant differences in smoking rates between the sexes).

There have been other advances that were improving medical treatments, and maybe the recent advances are having smaller effects.  This isn't saying that it isn't possible something else cannot come along and cause big improvements in life expectancy.

Austerity (as I posted above, the change in mortality improvements is hittting the poor disproportionately).

Volatility and one offs (eg flu and bad winters: if you look in the study above, you can see the hump caused by flu in 2015. FWIW I think there is going to be a noticeable fall in mortality in 2018 when it comes through as the winter wasn't bad and the flu vacine worked fine).

There is a limit to human life at about 115 years of age, so you see a lot more people over 100 these days, but very very few over 115).  This is bound to seep through into mortality improvements in the end.

There are some diseases where things are getting worse, eg sepsis and infections (as antiboitic resistence is getting worse for us.

So there is a significant tailing off in mortality improvements, but it is incorrect to assume it is all down to austerity.  Note that this has happened in other countries too, but we are at the extreme end of developed economies.

Maybe in another 10 years when we see a Government with different priorities, we can get a better understanding of the "austerity" effect, but it is all a bit early to try and put exact numbers on it.

I’m grateful as always, lots of good and interesting points.

I specifically said that Stiglitz is comprehensively on one side of the argument but I thought there was a value in re-reading his thoughts.

[TightEnd]

DOCUMENTS ON PROROGATION VOTE

YES: 311
NO: 302
Maj: 9

Govt defeated- for the fifth time in a row.

So all of the documents with regards to prorogation from key officials and Downing St staff supposed to be handed over.

This could be a bit of a slow burning important thing...

[TightEnd]

Dominic Grieve tells Parliament he has received information from inside Government, the implication of which, is that Boris Johnson misled the Queen about his reasons for requesting the prorogation of Parliament.

[aaron1867]

Seeing some of the responses on Twitter, you've genuinely got to worry for the safety of politicians if a conclusion isn't forthcoming soon. Folk threatening violence, rape & so on.

Got to remember that Jo Cox was brutally murdered by a Brexit supporting loon. I can see something similar happening if nothing changes.

[arbboy]

Seeing some of the responses on Twitter, you've genuinely got to worry for the safety of politicians if a conclusion isn't forthcoming soon. Folk threatening violence, rape & so on.

Got to remember that Jo Cox was brutally murdered by a Brexit supporting loon. I can see something similar happening if nothing changes.

Zero risk of a remoaner loon doing something siimilar if we leave with no deal?  All one way as usual?

[Karabiner]

Seeing some of the responses on Twitter, you've genuinely got to worry for the safety of politicians if a conclusion isn't forthcoming soon. Folk threatening violence, rape & so on.

Got to remember that Jo Cox was brutally murdered by a Brexit supporting loon. I can see something similar happening if nothing changes.

That is a little far-fetched Aaron.

[aaron1867]

Seeing some of the responses on Twitter, you've genuinely got to worry for the safety of politicians if a conclusion isn't forthcoming soon. Folk threatening violence, rape & so on.

Got to remember that Jo Cox was brutally murdered by a Brexit supporting loon. I can see something similar happening if nothing changes.

Zero risk of a remoaner loon doing something siimilar if we leave with no deal?  All one way as usual?

Do you get notifications when I post here?

[arbboy]

Seeing some of the responses on Twitter, you've genuinely got to worry for the safety of politicians if a conclusion isn't forthcoming soon. Folk threatening violence, rape & so on.

Got to remember that Jo Cox was brutally murdered by a Brexit supporting loon. I can see something similar happening if nothing changes.

Zero risk of a remoaner loon doing something siimilar if we leave with no deal?  All one way as usual?

Do you get notifications when I post here?

Yes my butler is briefed in advance how to reply. 

[aaron1867]

Seeing some of the responses on Twitter, you've genuinely got to worry for the safety of politicians if a conclusion isn't forthcoming soon. Folk threatening violence, rape & so on.

Got to remember that Jo Cox was brutally murdered by a Brexit supporting loon. I can see something similar happening if nothing changes.

That is a little far-fetched Aaron.

Maybe it is - But if something similar happened again, would you be really surprised? Some of the twitter responses are awful.

[arbboy]

Seeing some of the responses on Twitter, you've genuinely got to worry for the safety of politicians if a conclusion isn't forthcoming soon. Folk threatening violence, rape & so on.

Got to remember that Jo Cox was brutally murdered by a Brexit supporting loon. I can see something similar happening if nothing changes.

That is a little far-fetched Aaron.

Maybe it is - But if something similar happened again, would you be really surprised? Some of the twitter responses are awful.

Would you be equally unsurprised if a remoan loon did somethiing bonkers if we leave with no deal?

[aaron1867]

Seeing some of the responses on Twitter, you've genuinely got to worry for the safety of politicians if a conclusion isn't forthcoming soon. Folk threatening violence, rape & so on.

Got to remember that Jo Cox was brutally murdered by a Brexit supporting loon. I can see something similar happening if nothing changes.

That is a little far-fetched Aaron.

Maybe it is - But if something similar happened again, would you be really surprised? Some of the twitter responses are awful.

Would you be equally unsurprised if a remoan loon did somethiing bonkers if we leave with no deal?

You're struggling again Arb. I haven't said any such act would be carried out by supporters of either leave or remain.

[arbboy]

you said something simiilar could happen when a brexit loon committed murder so if it is similar then it will be another brexit loon because remoaners are all sensible and educated and 'get' the game don't they?

[aaron1867]

you said something simiilar could happen when a brexit loon committed murder so if it is similar then it will be another brexit loon because remoaners are all sensible and educated and 'get' the game don't they?

That’s an example mate. If you need any help grasping the simple point I made, just ask

[nirvana]

It will be another one he walks away from pops, we all know it.

I’ve never walked away from discussing the issues raised in this thread. As I’ve said before, the only reason why I’m here is because I believe there’s merit in discussing these things.

This isn’t a bad analysis, for sure it’s highly possible/likely that not all 120,000 are attributed directly to what the government, lots of them are though.

https://fullfact.org/health/austerity-120000-unnecessary-deaths/

Apologies to Rick for the approach I took in that sequence of posts.

Sometimes, I am sure you just find a nice juicy headline and don't read the article at all.

Extracts from this document that"proves your point"

 Restrictions on health and social care spending is one of a number of possible explanations for this, and the findings need to be treated with a bit of caution.


 “There was a report this week, we are getting 120,000 unnecessary deaths every year in this country as a direct result of the austerity.”

Val McDermid, 16 November 2017 (isn't Val a fiction writer???)


While lower growth in health and social care spending since 2010 may be behind the increase in deaths, these findings should be treated with caution as the research doesn’t prove this is the case. Reduced spending is one of a number of possible explanations for the results.


Older people accounted for more of these additional deaths, with deaths at care homes and at home contributing most to the estimated additional deaths. Deaths in hospital were lower than expected. The authors put this down to greater pressures on social care spending, but also a drive to move more patients reaching the end of possible health treatments out of hospital.
Lets think about this one a bit. Deaths were actually LOWER in hospitals. People sent off to care home, where they are looked after by Care Assistants, not Nurses. Hmm, what do we think the outcome is likely to be?


I struggle to see your headline 120,000 additional deaths due to austerity being in any way substantiated by this article..even the article questions its own numbers!

NEXT!

It goes without saying that I don’t think you understand. I am happy to try and do a better job of explaining if you’d like?

Carry on Rover, so far you haven't convinced anyone.

Oh, please keep up with the condescending put downs, it highlights your nice guy attributes.

So while I have been golfing today, more insults chucked, but as expected, still no reply to prove your point. You are right, it is insulting to be compared to you and your poor attempts at building yourself up, with F all to back it up, unless you have read it somewhere.

That study is out of date and we no longer need to use projections.  

There has been a marked fall in mortality improvements over the last 5 years, and the 40 year trend in mortality improvements may well have gone as far as reversing.  You can't know the real trend for sure because of variance; for instance a harsh winter can cause a spike in deaths etc.

I think it is a safe assumption to state that austerity has caused some of these excess deaths, but it certainly isn't all of them.  There has been excess deaths from flu in, from memory, 3 of the last 5 years, which was put down to a fairly ineffective flu vaccine for those years, and this has certainly caused some of the excess deaths.  You can see that austerity is a good candidate for a significant number of these deaths, by looking in more detail at the split of mortality improvements.  Those at the lower end of the social scale have suffered much more from the change in the trend in mortality improvements with those in higher social classes happily bowling along and experiencing improved mortality rates as if austerity never happened (the Jacob Rees Mogg, Boris de Pfeffel Johnson and Nigel Farage types have less reason to give a shit about the downside*).  

So I think it is safe to say that austerity has caused a significant number of excess deaths, but it isn't safe to say it caused 120,000 (or 90,000 or 75,000 or whatever today's number of the day is).

* As an aside a life insurer has to be careful reflecting the change in trend, as richer people tend to have bigger insurances, so their mortality is way more important to an insurer than the increased mortality suffered by the poor downtrodden Brexit party voters.

No doubt Kush will lay claim to this, so thanks for spoiling my fun Doobs.

He will then say it was so obvious, that's why he never bothered to reply to such a simpleton.

We know the truth though.

I thought Doobs summed it up well.

And the case for the prosecution rests.

BOOOOM!

Good night.

It would be fun to see you in action as a lawyer 😂. Good night.

I have a few issues with that "study", and don't think it as unbiassed as you think (and lol at unbiassed economists and nobel prize winners).   

Here is an unbiassed mortality study.  Note that it doesn't really assign blame, just details a bit of what is happening.   

https://www.actuaries.org.uk/system/files/field/document/CMI%20WP105%20v01%202018-03-01%20-%20CMI%20Mortality%20Projections%20Model%20CMI_2017%20Briefing%20Note.pdf

But having spoken to people who follow mortality closer than I do, there are a few hypotheses floating round.   

Smoking rates dropped markedly for a long time, but a lot of the benefit from that has happened already, and there is some talk that the female rates of improvement are lower as that population took up smoking later in the last century (there used to be much more significant differences in smoking rates between the sexes).

There have been other advances that were improving medical treatments, and maybe the recent advances are having smaller effects.  This isn't saying that it isn't possible something else cannot come along and cause big improvements in life expectancy.

Austerity (as I posted above, the change in mortality improvements is hittting the poor disproportionately).

Volatility and one offs (eg flu and bad winters: if you look in the study above, you can see the hump caused by flu in 2015. FWIW I think there is going to be a noticeable fall in mortality in 2018 when it comes through as the winter wasn't bad and the flu vacine worked fine).

There is a limit to human life at about 115 years of age, so you see a lot more people over 100 these days, but very very few over 115).  This is bound to seep through into mortality improvements in the end.

There are some diseases where things are getting worse, eg sepsis and infections (as antiboitic resistence is getting worse for us.

So there is a significant tailing off in mortality improvements, but it is incorrect to assume it is all down to austerity.  Note that this has happened in other countries too, but we are at the extreme end of developed economies.

Maybe in another 10 years when we see a Government with different priorities, we can get a better understanding of the "austerity" effect, but it is all a bit early to try and put exact numbers on it.

Thanks for this , it's kind of intuitive to know that the age at which we die cannot just keep increasing but I'm obviously no kind of expert so it's interesting to see the various factors outlined like this rather than the rather simplistic 100,000's killed by austerity.

[BigAdz]

It will be another one he walks away from pops, we all know it.

I’ve never walked away from discussing the issues raised in this thread. As I’ve said before, the only reason why I’m here is because I believe there’s merit in discussing these things.

This isn’t a bad analysis, for sure it’s highly possible/likely that not all 120,000 are attributed directly to what the government, lots of them are though.

https://fullfact.org/health/austerity-120000-unnecessary-deaths/

Apologies to Rick for the approach I took in that sequence of posts.

Sometimes, I am sure you just find a nice juicy headline and don't read the article at all.

Extracts from this document that"proves your point"

 Restrictions on health and social care spending is one of a number of possible explanations for this, and the findings need to be treated with a bit of caution.


 “There was a report this week, we are getting 120,000 unnecessary deaths every year in this country as a direct result of the austerity.”

Val McDermid, 16 November 2017 (isn't Val a fiction writer???)


While lower growth in health and social care spending since 2010 may be behind the increase in deaths, these findings should be treated with caution as the research doesn’t prove this is the case. Reduced spending is one of a number of possible explanations for the results.


Older people accounted for more of these additional deaths, with deaths at care homes and at home contributing most to the estimated additional deaths. Deaths in hospital were lower than expected. The authors put this down to greater pressures on social care spending, but also a drive to move more patients reaching the end of possible health treatments out of hospital.
Lets think about this one a bit. Deaths were actually LOWER in hospitals. People sent off to care home, where they are looked after by Care Assistants, not Nurses. Hmm, what do we think the outcome is likely to be?


I struggle to see your headline 120,000 additional deaths due to austerity being in any way substantiated by this article..even the article questions its own numbers!

NEXT!

It goes without saying that I don’t think you understand. I am happy to try and do a better job of explaining if you’d like?

Carry on Rover, so far you haven't convinced anyone.

Oh, please keep up with the condescending put downs, it highlights your nice guy attributes.

So while I have been golfing today, more insults chucked, but as expected, still no reply to prove your point. You are right, it is insulting to be compared to you and your poor attempts at building yourself up, with F all to back it up, unless you have read it somewhere.

That study is out of date and we no longer need to use projections.  

There has been a marked fall in mortality improvements over the last 5 years, and the 40 year trend in mortality improvements may well have gone as far as reversing.  You can't know the real trend for sure because of variance; for instance a harsh winter can cause a spike in deaths etc.

I think it is a safe assumption to state that austerity has caused some of these excess deaths, but it certainly isn't all of them.  There has been excess deaths from flu in, from memory, 3 of the last 5 years, which was put down to a fairly ineffective flu vaccine for those years, and this has certainly caused some of the excess deaths.  You can see that austerity is a good candidate for a significant number of these deaths, by looking in more detail at the split of mortality improvements.  Those at the lower end of the social scale have suffered much more from the change in the trend in mortality improvements with those in higher social classes happily bowling along and experiencing improved mortality rates as if austerity never happened (the Jacob Rees Mogg, Boris de Pfeffel Johnson and Nigel Farage types have less reason to give a shit about the downside*).  

So I think it is safe to say that austerity has caused a significant number of excess deaths, but it isn't safe to say it caused 120,000 (or 90,000 or 75,000 or whatever today's number of the day is).

* As an aside a life insurer has to be careful reflecting the change in trend, as richer people tend to have bigger insurances, so their mortality is way more important to an insurer than the increased mortality suffered by the poor downtrodden Brexit party voters.

No doubt Kush will lay claim to this, so thanks for spoiling my fun Doobs.

He will then say it was so obvious, that's why he never bothered to reply to such a simpleton.

We know the truth though.

I thought Doobs summed it up well.

And the case for the prosecution rests.

BOOOOM!

Good night.

It would be fun to see you in action as a lawyer 😂. Good night.

I have a few issues with that "study", and don't think it as unbiassed as you think (and lol at unbiassed economists and nobel prize winners).   

Here is an unbiassed mortality study.  Note that it doesn't really assign blame, just details a bit of what is happening.   

https://www.actuaries.org.uk/system/files/field/document/CMI%20WP105%20v01%202018-03-01%20-%20CMI%20Mortality%20Projections%20Model%20CMI_2017%20Briefing%20Note.pdf

But having spoken to people who follow mortality closer than I do, there are a few hypotheses floating round.   

Smoking rates dropped markedly for a long time, but a lot of the benefit from that has happened already, and there is some talk that the female rates of improvement are lower as that population took up smoking later in the last century (there used to be much more significant differences in smoking rates between the sexes).

There have been other advances that were improving medical treatments, and maybe the recent advances are having smaller effects.  This isn't saying that it isn't possible something else cannot come along and cause big improvements in life expectancy.

Austerity (as I posted above, the change in mortality improvements is hittting the poor disproportionately).

Volatility and one offs (eg flu and bad winters: if you look in the study above, you can see the hump caused by flu in 2015. FWIW I think there is going to be a noticeable fall in mortality in 2018 when it comes through as the winter wasn't bad and the flu vacine worked fine).

There is a limit to human life at about 115 years of age, so you see a lot more people over 100 these days, but very very few over 115).  This is bound to seep through into mortality improvements in the end.

There are some diseases where things are getting worse, eg sepsis and infections (as antiboitic resistence is getting worse for us.

So there is a significant tailing off in mortality improvements, but it is incorrect to assume it is all down to austerity.  Note that this has happened in other countries too, but we are at the extreme end of developed economies.

Maybe in another 10 years when we see a Government with different priorities, we can get a better understanding of the "austerity" effect, but it is all a bit early to try and put exact numbers on it.

Thanks for this , it's kind of intuitive to know that the age at which we die cannot just keep increasing but I'm obviously no kind of expert so it's interesting to see the various factors outlined like this rather than the rather simplistic 100,000's killed by austerity.

Exactly this.

I expected Kushs various links to push this kind of stuff, but he hadn't bothered to read them and so was unaware they didn't.

Doobs, as ever, has clarified and rationalized the argument with more detail and proven that some people on here can back up their bold statements and references, whereas others just post links as a massive bluff to their knowledge and understanding.

Thanks Doobs.