Are solar panel installs now free ?

[JohnW2]

Aren't there already thousands of people being paid to do completely non-productive jobs? Quite a few of them work in Whitehall.....

I'm sure there are - but I suspect that the people appointing and paying them don't perceive the the jobs as being "completely non-productive"

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

Of course not - Because the reams of paperwork they produce help to keep those who appointed them in their own non-productive jobs! So much has become a case of the system being a means to keep itself in "work" rather than being a means to any sort of useful end.

 

[JohnW2]

Of course not - Because the reams of paperwork they produce help to keep those who appointed them in their own non-productive jobs! So much has become a case of the system being a means to keep itself in "work" rather than being a means to any sort of useful end.

You know it, I know it, and unless 'they' are all completely daft, they must know it (and 'approve of it') too!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I don't personally agree with such imposed restrictions on 'lifestyle choices' - whether achieved by 'bans', draconian taxation or whatever. What, given the realities, one might contemplate is denying people treatment at NHS cost for the consequences of poor 'lifestyle choices'. However, to attempt that would be to open a massive can of worms. For a start, establishing a causal relationship between those 'choices' and diseases would be next-to-impossible in individual cases - people with almost ideal 'lifestyles' can, and do, develop diabetes, heart disease, cancer etc. More to the point, where would one stop? Would NHS-funded treatment be denied to anyone who had chosen to participate in sports etc. etc. ... and, probably the biggest issue, would our society really accept a situation in which people were 'left to die' if they were being denied NHS treatment and couldn't afford any other?

So you would rather open that can of worms than adopt a "stick" strategy which harms nobody (I'm not suggesting that possession of chocolate be made unlawful), and which has, with tobacco, been shown to be very effective in reducing consumption by making it more expensive?

How odd.

Would you repeal the legislation which requires fortification of some foods? If you are opposed to genetically modifying rice to address Vitamin A deficiency is that because of a general opposition to GM or because of the specific public health aspect?

Of course we do it, and always have done it, whether 'formally' or 'informally' - as you say, it is inevitable in any real-world healthcare system which has finite resources. The issue is about how the 'prioritisation' is done.

However, the point I was making about the use of QALYs is that reliance on them can result in anomalies (in many people's eyes) in what might be regarded as 'the other direction' - e.g. as I suggested, the arithmetic of QALYs could well say that giving a 20 year-old decades of very poor health (rather than a fairly swift death) was a 'better outcome' (hence more justifying of using healthcare resources) than giving 5 or 10 years of extra life 'in relatively good health' to a 40, 50 or 60 year-old. Some might agree with that, but many wouldn't.

If you move that can of worms a bit to the side, you'll find it was hiding one labelled "Assisted Dying".

I presume you will have read "Brave New World" at some time in your life?

A long time ago.

I struggle to see how suggesting that prophylactic sticks are needed as well as carrots, or that there is nothing to be gained by allowing the reality of finite funds to be denied, leads to that kind of social engineering.

 

[JohnW2]

So you would rather open that can of worms than adopt a "stick" strategy which harms nobody (I'm not suggesting that possession of chocolate be made unlawful), and which has, with tobacco, been shown to be very effective in reducing consumption by making it more expensive?

I'm not sure about that last bit. I thought that the evidence was that whenever there is an increase in the price of tobacco (or alcohol), there is a transient fall in consumption, after which it quickly returns to its previous level. It is education, coupled with changes in labelling, advertising, sponsorship etc., rather than cost, that has achieved the long-term persistent reduction in consumption.

Would you repeal the legislation which requires fortification of some foods?

I'm not sure that has got much to do with what we are discussing. Most compulsory fortification probably continues without fuss because it's so long-established that most people probably don't even realise that it is being 'imposed' upon us. However, within the memory of both you and I, there has been an awful lot of 'fuss' about, say, 'imposed' fluoridation of tap water.

If you are opposed to genetically modifying rice to address Vitamin A deficiency is that because of a general opposition to GM or because of the specific public health aspect?

That's even more off-topic - who says that I am opposed to such things?

If you move that can of worms a bit to the side, you'll find it was hiding one labelled "Assisted Dying".

Only for someone determined to drift the discussion even further! I was merely making a point about QALYs (which someone other than me introduced into the discussion) - that, because they integrate 'utility' ('quality of life') over time, they will lead to the conclusion than many years of extra 'poor quality life' represent a 'better outcome' than a few extra years of good quality life - which, as I said, not everyone will agree with.

I struggle to see how suggesting that prophylactic sticks are needed as well as carrots, or that there is nothing to be gained by allowing the reality of finite funds to be denied, leads to that kind of social engineering.

Again, my point was that over-reliance on QALYs could ultimately lead to those sorts of situations.

The key is effective education. I've nothing conceptually against 'sticks' - but what better stick can there be than getting people to really believe and understand that their 'lifestyle choices' may well lead to poor health and premature death?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'm not sure about that last bit. I thought that the evidence was that whenever there is an increase in the price of tobacco (or alcohol), there is a transient fall in consumption, after which it quickly returns to its previous level. It is education, coupled with changes in labelling, advertising, sponsorship etc., rather than cost, that has achieved the long-term persistent reduction in consumption.

Well over 100 studies from high-income countries have confirmed the inverse relationship between cigarette prices and cigarette smoking. The consensus among researchers working in this area is that a 10% increase in the price of cigarettes in developed countries will result in a 3 to 5% reduction in overall cigarette consumption. Studies that investigate the impact of cigarette prices on smoking prevalence and average smoking intensity among smokers separately generally find that approximately half of the impact of price on overall cigarette demand results from reducing the number of smokers by motivating current smokers to quit and discouraging youths from ever starting to smoke.

... smokers who bought cigarettes from Native American reservations were half as likely to make a quit attempt compared with those who bought full-priced cigarettes.

To have a positive impact on public health, cigarette prices need to increase faster than incomes to ensure that cigarettes become less affordable over time.


The Native American reservation point is telling. If we reasonably assume that US citizens are all equally exposed to the same health messages then the efficacy of those ought to be uniform. But where people can buy cheaper cigarettes, behaviour is different.

I'm not sure that has got much to do with what we are discussing. Most compulsory fortification probably continues without fuss because it's so long-established that most people probably don't even realise that it is being 'imposed' upon us. However, within the memory of both you and I, there has been an awful lot of 'fuss' about, say, 'imposed' fluoridation of tap water.

As you said you were opposed to restrictions on 'lifestyle choices' achieved by 'bans' and draconian taxation, I wondered if you were also opposed to other forced public health measures.

That's even more off-topic - who says that I am opposed to such things?

Nobody - that's why I began with "If you are..."

The key is effective education. I've nothing conceptually against 'sticks' - but what better stick can there be than getting people to really believe and understand that their 'lifestyle choices' may well lead to poor health and premature death?

The evidence clearly shows that other sticks are needed as well.