Quizzes & Puzzles21 mins ago
Excess Mortality Caused By Austerity
https:/
academics from the glasgow centre for population health have recently published a peer-reviewed paper in the journal of epidemiology and community health which suggests that severe public spending cuts were the most likely contributory cause in 335,000 deaths between 2012 and 2019 (before covid)... life expectancy fell by 6-7% in the most deprived parts of Scotland.
How are further spending cuts defensible in the face of these human costs?
academics from the glasgow centre for population health have recently published a peer-reviewed paper in the journal of epidemiology and community health which suggests that severe public spending cuts were the most likely contributory cause in 335,000 deaths between 2012 and 2019 (before covid)... life expectancy fell by 6-7% in the most deprived parts of Scotland.
How are further spending cuts defensible in the face of these human costs?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Untitled. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
royal society of medicine connected 30,000 deaths in 2015 alone to cuts in health and social care funding
https:/
https:/
The public seems to be getting addicted to vast public spending levels ever since covid. They expect tax payers money to be spent to protect them against any economic, health or social crisis whatever it may be and whatever the cost, so they are cocooned from any discomfort or upset, it's unsustainable.
//Quite, Dave. It began long before Covid but is worse since. Too many people have their hand out claiming to be ‘entitled’.//
Yes I quite agree.
The government cannot protect everybody from everything. One of the defining tragedies of the pandemic was people believing that they could and their demands that the government "do something" to prevent the spread of an airborne respiratory disease. The country had a robust plan for dealing with such a pandemic. It did not involve locking people down; it did not involve closing businesses; it did not involve paying people to stay at home. But it was ditched within the space of a few days because people believed that all those measures (and more) were not only necessary but that they would work. They were wrong on both counts (as will become clear when the enquiry publishes its results -if it is conducted properly). No other pandemic in history has ever been accompanied by such measures and it has crippled most advanced economies for a generation or more. It is, however, indicative of the idea that he government must spend endless supplies of money to prevent things that are not preventable.
So now we are told that "austerity" (which was actually quite conspicuous by its absence) has caused tens of thousands of "excess deaths." I have news - people die and they die at all sorts of ages from all manner of causes. Some people die younger than others for no discernable reason; others die younger because they adopt unsuitable lifestyles. There is nothing any government can do about either. In fact, if you shower people who live unsuitable lifestyles with more money and gifts, the chances are they will live even more unsuitably and will perhaps die even younger.
Yes I quite agree.
The government cannot protect everybody from everything. One of the defining tragedies of the pandemic was people believing that they could and their demands that the government "do something" to prevent the spread of an airborne respiratory disease. The country had a robust plan for dealing with such a pandemic. It did not involve locking people down; it did not involve closing businesses; it did not involve paying people to stay at home. But it was ditched within the space of a few days because people believed that all those measures (and more) were not only necessary but that they would work. They were wrong on both counts (as will become clear when the enquiry publishes its results -if it is conducted properly). No other pandemic in history has ever been accompanied by such measures and it has crippled most advanced economies for a generation or more. It is, however, indicative of the idea that he government must spend endless supplies of money to prevent things that are not preventable.
So now we are told that "austerity" (which was actually quite conspicuous by its absence) has caused tens of thousands of "excess deaths." I have news - people die and they die at all sorts of ages from all manner of causes. Some people die younger than others for no discernable reason; others die younger because they adopt unsuitable lifestyles. There is nothing any government can do about either. In fact, if you shower people who live unsuitable lifestyles with more money and gifts, the chances are they will live even more unsuitably and will perhaps die even younger.
The government cannot protect everybody from everything.
NJ is not the governor of Florida in his spare time is he?
100 avoidable ( easily avoidable ) deaths [just get in your car and go!] and everyone shrugs their shoulders
and says it is all a matter of freedom for the people
Mrs Truss - that is how to govern us - - just sad off and die!
does anyone remember NJ's heavy weight opposition to excess deaths as a measure of covid? I do
mever was a convert more er converted....
NJ is not the governor of Florida in his spare time is he?
100 avoidable ( easily avoidable ) deaths [just get in your car and go!] and everyone shrugs their shoulders
and says it is all a matter of freedom for the people
Mrs Truss - that is how to govern us - - just sad off and die!
does anyone remember NJ's heavy weight opposition to excess deaths as a measure of covid? I do
mever was a convert more er converted....
but the rise in mortality is very closely correlated with severe cuts to social security, mental health services, and social care... further research (some linked above) has established that this is more than correlation...
some people are not lucky enough to be able to look after themselves and need support from the state in order to get better or get by... it is those people who were driven to death by the cuts... the savings of which were peed away on foreign policy adventures or on funding pensions which were protected
i am afraid that whether or not you happened to see it in the parts of the country you happen to spend time in is completely irrelevant
some people are not lucky enough to be able to look after themselves and need support from the state in order to get better or get by... it is those people who were driven to death by the cuts... the savings of which were peed away on foreign policy adventures or on funding pensions which were protected
i am afraid that whether or not you happened to see it in the parts of the country you happen to spend time in is completely irrelevant
But the government's job is to decide what to spend its revenue on. They have to prioritise because those funds are not unlimited. You may not agree what they choose to spend it on (and most of the time neither do I). But they choose on the basis that they cannot do everything.
The same situation prevails today. The government cannot save everybody from everything and some people who may be saved if funds and resources were unlimited may not survive. There are people now who are suffering from terminal conditions who were not diagnosed and treated early enough because two years ago the government chose to prioritise Covid above virtually everything else. I didn't agree with that and said so at the time. I suggested the cure would eventually prove to be worse than the disease and was castigated widely on here. It seems from recent findings that I was probably right. It annoys me, but it was for the government to decide and they did so. It's no different to the findings of the report which is the subject of this question (except that the number of deaths resulting from prioritising Covid will probably be proved to be far more numerous than those mentioned in the report.
In short, stuff happens and no government can prevent all stuff from happening.
The same situation prevails today. The government cannot save everybody from everything and some people who may be saved if funds and resources were unlimited may not survive. There are people now who are suffering from terminal conditions who were not diagnosed and treated early enough because two years ago the government chose to prioritise Covid above virtually everything else. I didn't agree with that and said so at the time. I suggested the cure would eventually prove to be worse than the disease and was castigated widely on here. It seems from recent findings that I was probably right. It annoys me, but it was for the government to decide and they did so. It's no different to the findings of the report which is the subject of this question (except that the number of deaths resulting from prioritising Covid will probably be proved to be far more numerous than those mentioned in the report.
In short, stuff happens and no government can prevent all stuff from happening.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.