This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Shocking hygiene failings found in US meat
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
  Hrolf The Ganger  01 Mar 18 9.49am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
I'm sorry but talk of austerity is political mumbo jumbo.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| CambridgeEagle Sydenham 01 Mar 18 11.34am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
I'm sorry but talk of austerity is political mumbo jumbo. Mumbo jumbo? I'm staggered that you can't or refuse to see the impact of austerity on millions of people across the country. In historical terms life expectancy has stalled and some research shows it going backwards. This is the first time for over 100 years this has happened. It's allowed pension schemes to knock hundreds of millions off their expected liabilities as people are predicted to live less long than previously thought. This is a phenomenon unique to Britain. We're not seeing this in other OECD countries. The biggest impact is in poorer communities, where people have been driven into fuel poverty, where access to social care has been cut, where people rely on food banks, where NHS services have been cut and A&E wards closed. On November 16, an article in the British Medical Journal Open concluded that severe public spending cuts in the UK were associated with 120,000 deaths between 2010 and 2017. Just over a third of these occurred between 2012 and 2014 and almost none in 2010 or 2011. The rate of death due to austerity was rising and there was what is called a “dose-response relationship” between cuts and rising mortality. This term, commonly used as part of the evidence needed to establish that a medicine is beneficial, means that as you increase the dose of an intervention the responses to it rise at the same rate. It can also be used to indicate likely causes of harm. In this case it indicated that the more cuts there have been to public health, social services and benefits – particularly for people in old age – the more earlier deaths there have been in the UK. Cuts that prevent visits by social workers to elderly people reduce their chances of being found after a fall at home. Cuts that make it harder to rehouse someone who is currently in a hospital bed back into the community, result in hospital beds not being available for others. Diet is also a key factor with a lack of education and a government kowtowing to lobbyists, while providing swingeing cuts to the public bodies responsible for ensuring food safety. 120,000 deaths and counting is just political mumbo jumbo though...
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 01 Mar 18 12.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
Mumbo jumbo? I'm staggered that you can't or refuse to see the impact of austerity on millions of people across the country. In historical terms life expectancy has stalled and some research shows it going backwards. This is the first time for over 100 years this has happened. It's allowed pension schemes to knock hundreds of millions off their expected liabilities as people are predicted to live less long than previously thought. This is a phenomenon unique to Britain. We're not seeing this in other OECD countries. The biggest impact is in poorer communities, where people have been driven into fuel poverty, where access to social care has been cut, where people rely on food banks, where NHS services have been cut and A&E wards closed. On November 16, an article in the British Medical Journal Open concluded that severe public spending cuts in the UK were associated with 120,000 deaths between 2010 and 2017. Just over a third of these occurred between 2012 and 2014 and almost none in 2010 or 2011. The rate of death due to austerity was rising and there was what is called a “dose-response relationship” between cuts and rising mortality. This term, commonly used as part of the evidence needed to establish that a medicine is beneficial, means that as you increase the dose of an intervention the responses to it rise at the same rate. It can also be used to indicate likely causes of harm. In this case it indicated that the more cuts there have been to public health, social services and benefits – particularly for people in old age – the more earlier deaths there have been in the UK. Cuts that prevent visits by social workers to elderly people reduce their chances of being found after a fall at home. Cuts that make it harder to rehouse someone who is currently in a hospital bed back into the community, result in hospital beds not being available for others. Diet is also a key factor with a lack of education and a government kowtowing to lobbyists, while providing swingeing cuts to the public bodies responsible for ensuring food safety. 120,000 deaths and counting is just political mumbo jumbo though... Don't tell me. THe alternative is to vote for Jeremy. Let's see how that works out for everyone. I already know.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| elgrande bedford 01 Mar 18 2.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
Mumbo jumbo? I'm staggered that you can't or refuse to see the impact of austerity on millions of people across the country. In historical terms life expectancy has stalled and some research shows it going backwards. This is the first time for over 100 years this has happened. It's allowed pension schemes to knock hundreds of millions off their expected liabilities as people are predicted to live less long than previously thought. This is a phenomenon unique to Britain. We're not seeing this in other OECD countries. The biggest impact is in poorer communities, where people have been driven into fuel poverty, where access to social care has been cut, where people rely on food banks, where NHS services have been cut and A&E wards closed. On November 16, an article in the British Medical Journal Open concluded that severe public spending cuts in the UK were associated with 120,000 deaths between 2010 and 2017. Just over a third of these occurred between 2012 and 2014 and almost none in 2010 or 2011. The rate of death due to austerity was rising and there was what is called a “dose-response relationship” between cuts and rising mortality. This term, commonly used as part of the evidence needed to establish that a medicine is beneficial, means that as you increase the dose of an intervention the responses to it rise at the same rate. It can also be used to indicate likely causes of harm. In this case it indicated that the more cuts there have been to public health, social services and benefits – particularly for people in old age – the more earlier deaths there have been in the UK. Cuts that prevent visits by social workers to elderly people reduce their chances of being found after a fall at home. Cuts that make it harder to rehouse someone who is currently in a hospital bed back into the community, result in hospital beds not being available for others. Diet is also a key factor with a lack of education and a government kowtowing to lobbyists, while providing swingeing cuts to the public bodies responsible for ensuring food safety. 120,000 deaths and counting is just political mumbo jumbo though... Sorry is that a fact,or is it someone posting it on an open Blogg.
always a Norwood boy, where ever I live. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Y Ddraig Goch  In The Crowd 01 Mar 18 3.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
A vegan said to me "people who sell meat are disgusting" I replied, "those who sell fruit and veg are grocer"
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| steeleye20 Croydon 01 Mar 18 4.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by elgrande
Sorry is that a fact,or is it someone posting it on an open Blogg. Well it is happening for sure as CE says. So why do we tolerate it? If you doubled the NHS budget what would it be, 10 billions? I wouldn't have people suffering, what perverted logic is that? Cosset them, look after them, life is hard sometimes especially when you are ill. Why is a compassionate society a problem, its not actually expensive compared to other barmy projects or servicing debt.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Y Ddraig Goch In The Crowd 01 Mar 18 4.06pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
Well it is happening for sure as CE says. So why do we tolerate it? I wouldn't have people suffering, what perverted logic is that? Cosset them, look after them, life is hard sometimes especially when you are ill. Why is a compassionate society a problem, its not actually expensive compared to other barmy projects or servicing debt. Try £230 Billion
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| steeleye20 Croydon 01 Mar 18 4.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Y Ddraig Goch
Try £230 Billion
What sum would fix it I mean properly.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 01 Mar 18 5.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
What sum would fix it I mean properly. It is a bottomless pit of expenditure which will struggle more year on year to cope with the ridiculous annual growth in population caused by immigration.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| CambridgeEagle Sydenham 02 Mar 18 10.31am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by elgrande
Sorry is that a fact,or is it someone posting it on an open Blogg. It's an online paper on the BMJ Open site, which has publishing criteria. It's authors are genuine medical professionals and serious academics carrying out serious and properly done research: Authors Johnathan Watkins Wahyu Wulaningsih Charlie Da Zhou Dominic C Marshall Guia D C Sylianteng Phyllis G Dela Rosa Viveka A Miguel Rosalind Raine Lawrence P King Mahiben Maruthappu
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| CambridgeEagle Sydenham 02 Mar 18 10.34am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
It is a bottomless pit of expenditure which will struggle more year on year to cope with the ridiculous annual growth in population caused by immigration. The funding gap is estimated at c.£20bn or c.1% of GDP. This would bring our spending in line with other Northern European countries who are not seeing these problems (and also have better diets). Our spending is more like a Southern European nation, who benefit from less severe winters, better diets, and also culturally a lot more care is given in the community and by families and they have different work life balances. We can't be a culturally northern European nation while investing in our NHS like a Southern European one. When you do you get the results we're seeing now of overstretched services and worsening outcomes. Austerity is not mumbo jumbo. People's lives aren't mumbo jumbo.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| CambridgeEagle Sydenham 02 Mar 18 10.36am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Don't tell me. THe alternative is to vote for Jeremy. Let's see how that works out for everyone. I already know. I've been chastised for making predictions on this very thread. I'd argue that it would be better to vote for any party who has a manifesto that promises adequate funding for public services funded by more reasonable levels of taxation. Currently the only party offering that is Labour. Labour would also do more in terms of food safety and preventing questionable meat entering or being produced in the UK. Edited by CambridgeEagle (02 Mar 2018 10.40am)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.