Not good, as with the Westminster vote pro lifers must draw a line in the sand and ensure this goes no further and certainly not beyond the terminally ill.
70 to 56 though not a very decisive margin and well done John Swinney for being in those who voted against
It is day two of outrage over Keir Starmer’s speech launching the government’s immigration white paper.
Sadiq Khan, the Labour mayor of London, said the “island of strangers” phrase was “not the sort of words I would use”, while Eluned Morgan, Labour first minister of Wales, said: “I will not be drawn into a debate where people are using divisive language when it comes to immigration.”
Public opinion, on the other hand, has remained stoically unmoved. YouGov asked: “In a speech yesterday Keir Starmer said that without fair immigration rules ‘we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together’. Which of the following comes closest to your view...
“I agree with the sentiment, and take no issue with the language”: 41 per cent
“I agree with the sentiment, but don’t think the language was appropriate”: 12 per cent
“I disagree with the sentiment, but take no issue with the language”: 9 per cent
“I disagree with the sentiment, and don't think the language was appropriate”: 18 per cent
While 20 per cent said they didn’t know.
More worryingly for Starmer, only 20 per cent said they thought the new policies would reduce immigration; 41 per cent said they would make no difference; and 9 per cent said they would increase it (30 per cent didn’t know or hadn’t heard of the policies).
That’s not more worryingly for Starmer, he’ll exceed expectations given the fall already baked in.
If you don't follow politics closely it is a bit of a head scratcher. Boris and the Brexit gang turbo charging net migration followed by remain pinup Starmer slashing it.
Er, no ducks. Starmer's very best outcome is a modest decline to still historically high levels. Nobody will notice anything except more people.
It's a bit like an electrician quoting £10k for a job that should be £2500, then another one coming in and saying "He's trying to have you over over there, I only charge five grand". People will think they are both wankers
Noticeable on ITV News tonight when questioned by journalist Paul Brand, whose news reports seem to be largely based on lobbyists pet causes, about the language used by SKS Yvette Cooper very clearly would not back Starmers rhetoric and made it clear she did not feel there were strangers in her constituency. I wonder how on board she is. Especially when she refused to address any changes to ILR when asked.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
Multi-generational households. Women not working. It's pretty simple.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Let's get even more controversial: how much of our GDP do we want to spend keeping elderly people alive who have dementia, and aren't aware of themselves or their families anymore, who perhaps rarely visit them?
I'm not asking this to be nasty, and I recognise it's an uncomfortable question, but it's one worth reflecting on because from the perspective of the public purse it's one I struggle to justify against other priorities.
Are you advocating euthanasia? The assisted dying bill swerves this requiring mental capacity and less than 6 month life expectancy.
I haven't a clue. The ethics are horrendous every way I turn.
But, we accept "turning off the life support machine" for those with no prospect of recovery and this for me feels like a shade of grey to that.
To cheer you up, age-adjusted rates of dementia are dropping quite fast across high-income countries, possibly linked to a fall in smoking rates (lots of alternative theories).
Doubtful as most smokers probably die before being old enough to get dementia, the cause of the increase in dementia is nothing more than medical science keeping people alive too long. Dementia was not a big issue in the 70's and 80's when more people smoked
Perhaps more than an age effect – I dimly recall smoking being a protective factor for Alzheimer's or Parkinson's or one of those brain lurgies.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
We haven't, sorry. An 85 year old in 1841 had a life expectancy of 4 years. We've bumped that up to 6 in 190 years.
That seems like a reasonably significant increase, given that the chances of dying soon at that age, particularly for men, are relatively high. On top of which more people are making that age in the first place.
I guess so, but it hardly explains the increase in problems with dementia. The change in the last 30 years or so is tiny.
In 1950 the percentage of people who reached 80 was 0.6% now its over 5%.....therefore the increase in dementia and has substantially increased in percentage since 1990
(It must be a lot higher than 5%?)
The distinction here is our ability to keep 80 year olds going is not the primary factor why dementia caseload has increased so much. It's our ability to get so many more people to 80.
I think the other thing to bear in mind is not to get lost in the percentage changes. So, there has been a massive percentage increase in the number of people aged 95. But it's not that many people, compared with say the number of 65 year old men getting treatment for heart disease.
Wow no correlation between keeping people alive longer and an increase of a disease that comes with age.....shakes head
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
Multi-generational households. Women not working. It's pretty simple.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Let's get even more controversial: how much of our GDP do we want to spend keeping elderly people alive who have dementia, and aren't aware of themselves or their families anymore, who perhaps rarely visit them?
I'm not asking this to be nasty, and I recognise it's an uncomfortable question, but it's one worth reflecting on because from the perspective of the public purse it's one I struggle to justify against other priorities.
Are you advocating euthanasia? The assisted dying bill swerves this requiring mental capacity and less than 6 month life expectancy.
I haven't a clue. The ethics are horrendous every way I turn.
But, we accept "turning off the life support machine" for those with no prospect of recovery and this for me feels like a shade of grey to that.
To cheer you up, age-adjusted rates of dementia are dropping quite fast across high-income countries, possibly linked to a fall in smoking rates (lots of alternative theories).
Doubtful as most smokers probably die before being old enough to get dementia, the cause of the increase in dementia is nothing more than medical science keeping people alive too long. Dementia was not a big issue in the 70's and 80's when more people smoked
Perhaps more than an age effect – I dimly recall smoking being a protective factor for Alzheimer's or Parkinson's or one of those brain lurgies.
Alzheimers.
Though probably the apparent benefit was survival bias. Not many active smokers live long enough to get dementia.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
No point arguing with him he still believes housing has been growing faster than population
Oh I've got some even better stats up my sleeve on that front.
Post away because its obvious you are wrong and we will happily pick holes in the argument that since 2000 we built more homes than we imported people
Well, that's different to growing faster. Which is it?
Evidence that there are more homes per capita than there were back in 2000
Number of homes per person in 2000 = 0.43 Number of homes per person in 2023 = 0.44
Does this take empty residences being used as investments into account?
I think that number is even smaller than a rounding error, though imo they should be subjected to a multiple of Council Tax, like second dwellings can be.
And if they are overseas owned, they are subject to I think a 2% Stamp Duty surcharge, and an ATED Annual Tax on Enveloped Dwellings, which is around 1% if the property is worth £500k or more.
Well for a start those figures are not based on houses but households. 3 couples each of which has a room in an hmo is 3 households but one house
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
Multi-generational households. Women not working. It's pretty simple.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Let's get even more controversial: how much of our GDP do we want to spend keeping elderly people alive who have dementia, and aren't aware of themselves or their families anymore, who perhaps rarely visit them?
I'm not asking this to be nasty, and I recognise it's an uncomfortable question, but it's one worth reflecting on because from the perspective of the public purse it's one I struggle to justify against other priorities.
On this I agree with you 100%.
I would rather choose assisted dying than end up in a home unable to recognise anyone or control my bladder or bowels.
Hopefully the assisted dying bill goes through, and gets liberalised like it has in Canada so people have that choice in the future. Forcing people to stay alive, against their wishes, is not a kindness.
To deal with the demented though it would have to be done without there consent
Or done in the earlier stages when people know they're declining and can see the writing on the wall.
I would abolish the 6 month requirement. Just have people be of sound mind and making sure they're certain.
There is a window of opportunity between diagnosis and when people are too far gone that people should be able to make that choice of their own free will, if they wish to do so. If they don't, that choice should be respected to.
Doesn't sound like you have dealt with dementia frankly, my father refused to believe and still does there is any issue. From talking to plenty of other people in similar situations it seems more unusual for people to admit the dementia in the early days when they could make the decision and still be compis mentis
Sadly, the first faculty to go is the ability to judge one's own faculties.
Yes and as I said I know a lot of people who have parents with dementia. There are support groups. Yet to hear anything other than the parent was in denial about it
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
We haven't, sorry. An 85 year old in 1841 had a life expectancy of 4 years. We've bumped that up to 6 in 190 years.
That seems like a reasonably significant increase, given that the chances of dying soon at that age, particularly for men, are relatively high. On top of which more people are making that age in the first place.
I guess so, but it hardly explains the increase in problems with dementia. The change in the last 30 years or so is tiny.
In 1950 the percentage of people who reached 80 was 0.6% now its over 5%.....therefore the increase in dementia and has substantially increased in percentage since 1990
(It must be a lot higher than 5%?)
The distinction here is our ability to keep 80 year olds going is not the primary factor why dementia caseload has increased so much. It's our ability to get so many more people to 80.
I think the other thing to bear in mind is not to get lost in the percentage changes. So, there has been a massive percentage increase in the number of people aged 95. But it's not that many people, compared with say the number of 65 year old men getting treatment for heart disease.
Wow no correlation between keeping people alive longer and an increase of a disease that comes with age.....shakes head
The increase is due to the increase in numbers of elderly, what @Eabhal is saying is that the risk to any individual elderly person is dropping.
Statins, BP control etc all help with vascular aging, so probably down to that, as well as falling alcohol consumption.
Nothing wrong with being old if you are fit. My folks are 90 and 88 this year, and require no paid help. We are off to a family birthday of my mother's older sister this weekend. She needs no outside help either, apart from her daughter taking her to the supermarket once a week.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
Multi-generational households. Women not working. It's pretty simple.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Let's get even more controversial: how much of our GDP do we want to spend keeping elderly people alive who have dementia, and aren't aware of themselves or their families anymore, who perhaps rarely visit them?
I'm not asking this to be nasty, and I recognise it's an uncomfortable question, but it's one worth reflecting on because from the perspective of the public purse it's one I struggle to justify against other priorities.
Are you advocating euthanasia? The assisted dying bill swerves this requiring mental capacity and less than 6 month life expectancy.
I haven't a clue. The ethics are horrendous every way I turn.
But, we accept "turning off the life support machine" for those with no prospect of recovery and this for me feels like a shade of grey to that.
To cheer you up, age-adjusted rates of dementia are dropping quite fast across high-income countries, possibly linked to a fall in smoking rates (lots of alternative theories).
Doubtful as most smokers probably die before being old enough to get dementia, the cause of the increase in dementia is nothing more than medical science keeping people alive too long. Dementia was not a big issue in the 70's and 80's when more people smoked
Perhaps more than an age effect – I dimly recall smoking being a protective factor for Alzheimer's or Parkinson's or one of those brain lurgies.
Alzheimers.
Though probably the apparent benefit was survival bias. Not many active smokers live long enough to get dementia.
So do you give advice to smoking patients....you should give up so you get chance to get dementia?
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
We haven't, sorry. An 85 year old in 1841 had a life expectancy of 4 years. We've bumped that up to 6 in 190 years.
That seems like a reasonably significant increase, given that the chances of dying soon at that age, particularly for men, are relatively high. On top of which more people are making that age in the first place.
I guess so, but it hardly explains the increase in problems with dementia. The change in the last 30 years or so is tiny.
In 1950 the percentage of people who reached 80 was 0.6% now its over 5%.....therefore the increase in dementia and has substantially increased in percentage since 1990
(It must be a lot higher than 5%?)
The distinction here is our ability to keep 80 year olds going is not the primary factor why dementia caseload has increased so much. It's our ability to get so many more people to 80.
I think the other thing to bear in mind is not to get lost in the percentage changes. So, there has been a massive percentage increase in the number of people aged 95. But it's not that many people, compared with say the number of 65 year old men getting treatment for heart disease.
Wow no correlation between keeping people alive longer and an increase of a disease that comes with age.....shakes head
The increase is due to the increase in numbers of elderly, what @Eabhal is saying is that the risk to any individual elderly person is dropping.
Statins, BP control etc all help with vascular aging, so probably down to that, as well as falling alcohol consumption.
Nothing wrong with being old if you are fit. My folks are 90 and 88 this year, and require no paid help. We are off to a family birthday of my mother's older sister this weekend. She needs no outside help either, apart from her daughter taking her to the supermarket once a week.
And the preventative medicine for alzheimers is what? As far as I know there is none
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
Multi-generational households. Women not working. It's pretty simple.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Let's get even more controversial: how much of our GDP do we want to spend keeping elderly people alive who have dementia, and aren't aware of themselves or their families anymore, who perhaps rarely visit them?
I'm not asking this to be nasty, and I recognise it's an uncomfortable question, but it's one worth reflecting on because from the perspective of the public purse it's one I struggle to justify against other priorities.
On this I agree with you 100%.
I would rather choose assisted dying than end up in a home unable to recognise anyone or control my bladder or bowels.
Hopefully the assisted dying bill goes through, and gets liberalised like it has in Canada so people have that choice in the future. Forcing people to stay alive, against their wishes, is not a kindness.
To deal with the demented though it would have to be done without there consent
Or done in the earlier stages when people know they're declining and can see the writing on the wall.
I would abolish the 6 month requirement. Just have people be of sound mind and making sure they're certain.
There is a window of opportunity between diagnosis and when people are too far gone that people should be able to make that choice of their own free will, if they wish to do so. If they don't, that choice should be respected to.
Doesn't sound like you have dealt with dementia frankly, my father refused to believe and still does there is any issue. From talking to plenty of other people in similar situations it seems more unusual for people to admit the dementia in the early days when they could make the decision and still be compis mentis
Sadly, the first faculty to go is the ability to judge one's own faculties.
Yes and as I said I know a lot of people who have parents with dementia. There are support groups. Yet to hear anything other than the parent was in denial about it
Indeed. My Sister, Stepdad and I are convinced my Mother has it. Suffice to say she doesn’t and, sadly, my Stepdad just won’t do anything practical such as setting up power of attorney.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
Multi-generational households. Women not working. It's pretty simple.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Let's get even more controversial: how much of our GDP do we want to spend keeping elderly people alive who have dementia, and aren't aware of themselves or their families anymore, who perhaps rarely visit them?
I'm not asking this to be nasty, and I recognise it's an uncomfortable question, but it's one worth reflecting on because from the perspective of the public purse it's one I struggle to justify against other priorities.
Are you advocating euthanasia? The assisted dying bill swerves this requiring mental capacity and less than 6 month life expectancy.
I haven't a clue. The ethics are horrendous every way I turn.
But, we accept "turning off the life support machine" for those with no prospect of recovery and this for me feels like a shade of grey to that.
To cheer you up, age-adjusted rates of dementia are dropping quite fast across high-income countries, possibly linked to a fall in smoking rates (lots of alternative theories).
Doubtful as most smokers probably die before being old enough to get dementia, the cause of the increase in dementia is nothing more than medical science keeping people alive too long. Dementia was not a big issue in the 70's and 80's when more people smoked
Perhaps more than an age effect – I dimly recall smoking being a protective factor for Alzheimer's or Parkinson's or one of those brain lurgies.
Alzheimers.
Though probably the apparent benefit was survival bias. Not many active smokers live long enough to get dementia.
So do you give advice to smoking patients....you should give up so you get chance to get dementia?
Carry on Smoking. Pay more tax. Die early and save the state the cost of pension and healthcare. 👍
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
Multi-generational households. Women not working. It's pretty simple.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Let's get even more controversial: how much of our GDP do we want to spend keeping elderly people alive who have dementia, and aren't aware of themselves or their families anymore, who perhaps rarely visit them?
I'm not asking this to be nasty, and I recognise it's an uncomfortable question, but it's one worth reflecting on because from the perspective of the public purse it's one I struggle to justify against other priorities.
On this I agree with you 100%.
I would rather choose assisted dying than end up in a home unable to recognise anyone or control my bladder or bowels.
Hopefully the assisted dying bill goes through, and gets liberalised like it has in Canada so people have that choice in the future. Forcing people to stay alive, against their wishes, is not a kindness.
To deal with the demented though it would have to be done without there consent
Or done in the earlier stages when people know they're declining and can see the writing on the wall.
I would abolish the 6 month requirement. Just have people be of sound mind and making sure they're certain.
There is a window of opportunity between diagnosis and when people are too far gone that people should be able to make that choice of their own free will, if they wish to do so. If they don't, that choice should be respected to.
Doesn't sound like you have dealt with dementia frankly, my father refused to believe and still does there is any issue. From talking to plenty of other people in similar situations it seems more unusual for people to admit the dementia in the early days when they could make the decision and still be compis mentis
Sadly, the first faculty to go is the ability to judge one's own faculties.
Yes and as I said I know a lot of people who have parents with dementia. There are support groups. Yet to hear anything other than the parent was in denial about it
Indeed. My Sister, Stepdad and I are convinced my Mother has it. Suffice to say she doesn’t and, sadly, my Stepdad just won’t do anything practical such as setting up power of attorney.
Most I know that have to do with those with alzheimers in my experience there main issue is trying to get people with it to accept they need restrictions such as not driving anymore, disconnecting the oven etc
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
We haven't, sorry. An 85 year old in 1841 had a life expectancy of 4 years. We've bumped that up to 6 in 190 years.
That seems like a reasonably significant increase, given that the chances of dying soon at that age, particularly for men, are relatively high. On top of which more people are making that age in the first place.
I guess so, but it hardly explains the increase in problems with dementia. The change in the last 30 years or so is tiny.
In 1950 the percentage of people who reached 80 was 0.6% now its over 5%.....therefore the increase in dementia and has substantially increased in percentage since 1990
(It must be a lot higher than 5%?)
The distinction here is our ability to keep 80 year olds going is not the primary factor why dementia caseload has increased so much. It's our ability to get so many more people to 80.
I think the other thing to bear in mind is not to get lost in the percentage changes. So, there has been a massive percentage increase in the number of people aged 95. But it's not that many people, compared with say the number of 65 year old men getting treatment for heart disease.
Wow no correlation between keeping people alive longer and an increase of a disease that comes with age.....shakes head
The increase is due to the increase in numbers of elderly, what @Eabhal is saying is that the risk to any individual elderly person is dropping.
Statins, BP control etc all help with vascular aging, so probably down to that, as well as falling alcohol consumption.
Nothing wrong with being old if you are fit. My folks are 90 and 88 this year, and require no paid help. We are off to a family birthday of my mother's older sister this weekend. She needs no outside help either, apart from her daughter taking her to the supermarket once a week.
And the preventative medicine for alzheimers is what? As far as I know there is none
The new weight loss drugs, according to reports in the past few days, protect against dementia. It looks like they might even get youngsters off their smartphones.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
We haven't, sorry. An 85 year old in 1841 had a life expectancy of 4 years. We've bumped that up to 6 in 190 years.
That seems like a reasonably significant increase, given that the chances of dying soon at that age, particularly for men, are relatively high. On top of which more people are making that age in the first place.
I guess so, but it hardly explains the increase in problems with dementia. The change in the last 30 years or so is tiny.
In 1950 the percentage of people who reached 80 was 0.6% now its over 5%.....therefore the increase in dementia and has substantially increased in percentage since 1990
(It must be a lot higher than 5%?)
The distinction here is our ability to keep 80 year olds going is not the primary factor why dementia caseload has increased so much. It's our ability to get so many more people to 80.
I think the other thing to bear in mind is not to get lost in the percentage changes. So, there has been a massive percentage increase in the number of people aged 95. But it's not that many people, compared with say the number of 65 year old men getting treatment for heart disease.
Wow no correlation between keeping people alive longer and an increase of a disease that comes with age.....shakes head
The increase is due to the increase in numbers of elderly, what @Eabhal is saying is that the risk to any individual elderly person is dropping.
Statins, BP control etc all help with vascular aging, so probably down to that, as well as falling alcohol consumption.
Nothing wrong with being old if you are fit. My folks are 90 and 88 this year, and require no paid help. We are off to a family birthday of my mother's older sister this weekend. She needs no outside help either, apart from her daughter taking her to the supermarket once a week.
And the preventative medicine for alzheimers is what? As far as I know there is none
The new weight loss drugs, according to reports in the past few days, protect against dementia. It looks like they might even get youngsters off their smartphones.
I would think the evidence of that is scant....how would you know till those people get into the late 70's or early 80's
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
We haven't, sorry. An 85 year old in 1841 had a life expectancy of 4 years. We've bumped that up to 6 in 190 years.
That seems like a reasonably significant increase, given that the chances of dying soon at that age, particularly for men, are relatively high. On top of which more people are making that age in the first place.
I guess so, but it hardly explains the increase in problems with dementia. The change in the last 30 years or so is tiny.
In 1950 the percentage of people who reached 80 was 0.6% now its over 5%.....therefore the increase in dementia and has substantially increased in percentage since 1990
(It must be a lot higher than 5%?)
The distinction here is our ability to keep 80 year olds going is not the primary factor why dementia caseload has increased so much. It's our ability to get so many more people to 80.
I think the other thing to bear in mind is not to get lost in the percentage changes. So, there has been a massive percentage increase in the number of people aged 95. But it's not that many people, compared with say the number of 65 year old men getting treatment for heart disease.
Wow no correlation between keeping people alive longer and an increase of a disease that comes with age.....shakes head
The increase is due to the increase in numbers of elderly, what @Eabhal is saying is that the risk to any individual elderly person is dropping.
Statins, BP control etc all help with vascular aging, so probably down to that, as well as falling alcohol consumption.
Nothing wrong with being old if you are fit. My folks are 90 and 88 this year, and require no paid help. We are off to a family birthday of my mother's older sister this weekend. She needs no outside help either, apart from her daughter taking her to the supermarket once a week.
And the preventative medicine for alzheimers is what? As far as I know there is none
The new weight loss drugs, according to reports in the past few days, protect against dementia. It looks like they might even get youngsters off their smartphones.
I would think the evidence of that is scant....how would you know till those people get into the late 70's or early 80's
They have been used for ages already for diabetes.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
Multi-generational households. Women not working. It's pretty simple.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Let's get even more controversial: how much of our GDP do we want to spend keeping elderly people alive who have dementia, and aren't aware of themselves or their families anymore, who perhaps rarely visit them?
I'm not asking this to be nasty, and I recognise it's an uncomfortable question, but it's one worth reflecting on because from the perspective of the public purse it's one I struggle to justify against other priorities.
On this I agree with you 100%.
I would rather choose assisted dying than end up in a home unable to recognise anyone or control my bladder or bowels.
Hopefully the assisted dying bill goes through, and gets liberalised like it has in Canada so people have that choice in the future. Forcing people to stay alive, against their wishes, is not a kindness.
To deal with the demented though it would have to be done without there consent
Or done in the earlier stages when people know they're declining and can see the writing on the wall.
I would abolish the 6 month requirement. Just have people be of sound mind and making sure they're certain.
There is a window of opportunity between diagnosis and when people are too far gone that people should be able to make that choice of their own free will, if they wish to do so. If they don't, that choice should be respected to.
Doesn't sound like you have dealt with dementia frankly, my father refused to believe and still does there is any issue. From talking to plenty of other people in similar situations it seems more unusual for people to admit the dementia in the early days when they could make the decision and still be compis mentis
Sadly, the first faculty to go is the ability to judge one's own faculties.
Yes and as I said I know a lot of people who have parents with dementia. There are support groups. Yet to hear anything other than the parent was in denial about it
Indeed. My Sister, Stepdad and I are convinced my Mother has it. Suffice to say she doesn’t and, sadly, my Stepdad just won’t do anything practical such as setting up power of attorney.
Power of Attorney is complicated to set up if she lacks capacity.
It's best done at the same time as writing a will, when still in sound mind.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
We haven't, sorry. An 85 year old in 1841 had a life expectancy of 4 years. We've bumped that up to 6 in 190 years.
That seems like a reasonably significant increase, given that the chances of dying soon at that age, particularly for men, are relatively high. On top of which more people are making that age in the first place.
I guess so, but it hardly explains the increase in problems with dementia. The change in the last 30 years or so is tiny.
In 1950 the percentage of people who reached 80 was 0.6% now its over 5%.....therefore the increase in dementia and has substantially increased in percentage since 1990
(It must be a lot higher than 5%?)
The distinction here is our ability to keep 80 year olds going is not the primary factor why dementia caseload has increased so much. It's our ability to get so many more people to 80.
I think the other thing to bear in mind is not to get lost in the percentage changes. So, there has been a massive percentage increase in the number of people aged 95. But it's not that many people, compared with say the number of 65 year old men getting treatment for heart disease.
Wow no correlation between keeping people alive longer and an increase of a disease that comes with age.....shakes head
The increase is due to the increase in numbers of elderly, what @Eabhal is saying is that the risk to any individual elderly person is dropping.
Statins, BP control etc all help with vascular aging, so probably down to that, as well as falling alcohol consumption.
Nothing wrong with being old if you are fit. My folks are 90 and 88 this year, and require no paid help. We are off to a family birthday of my mother's older sister this weekend. She needs no outside help either, apart from her daughter taking her to the supermarket once a week.
And the preventative medicine for alzheimers is what? As far as I know there is none
The new weight loss drugs, according to reports in the past few days, protect against dementia. It looks like they might even get youngsters off their smartphones.
Pretty much all addictive behaviour, including alcohol, gambling, even shopping (once a new slimmer wardrobe has been purchased). They are remarkable drugs, and really quite safe
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
Multi-generational households. Women not working. It's pretty simple.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Let's get even more controversial: how much of our GDP do we want to spend keeping elderly people alive who have dementia, and aren't aware of themselves or their families anymore, who perhaps rarely visit them?
I'm not asking this to be nasty, and I recognise it's an uncomfortable question, but it's one worth reflecting on because from the perspective of the public purse it's one I struggle to justify against other priorities.
On this I agree with you 100%.
I would rather choose assisted dying than end up in a home unable to recognise anyone or control my bladder or bowels.
Hopefully the assisted dying bill goes through, and gets liberalised like it has in Canada so people have that choice in the future. Forcing people to stay alive, against their wishes, is not a kindness.
To deal with the demented though it would have to be done without there consent
Or done in the earlier stages when people know they're declining and can see the writing on the wall.
I would abolish the 6 month requirement. Just have people be of sound mind and making sure they're certain.
There is a window of opportunity between diagnosis and when people are too far gone that people should be able to make that choice of their own free will, if they wish to do so. If they don't, that choice should be respected to.
Doesn't sound like you have dealt with dementia frankly, my father refused to believe and still does there is any issue. From talking to plenty of other people in similar situations it seems more unusual for people to admit the dementia in the early days when they could make the decision and still be compis mentis
Sadly, the first faculty to go is the ability to judge one's own faculties.
Yes and as I said I know a lot of people who have parents with dementia. There are support groups. Yet to hear anything other than the parent was in denial about it
Indeed. My Sister, Stepdad and I are convinced my Mother has it. Suffice to say she doesn’t and, sadly, my Stepdad just won’t do anything practical such as setting up power of attorney.
Most I know that have to do with those with alzheimers in my experience there main issue is trying to get people with it to accept they need restrictions such as not driving anymore, disconnecting the oven etc
My Stepdad, to be fair to him, just sold my Moms car so they now only have one and he just drives.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
Multi-generational households. Women not working. It's pretty simple.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Let's get even more controversial: how much of our GDP do we want to spend keeping elderly people alive who have dementia, and aren't aware of themselves or their families anymore, who perhaps rarely visit them?
I'm not asking this to be nasty, and I recognise it's an uncomfortable question, but it's one worth reflecting on because from the perspective of the public purse it's one I struggle to justify against other priorities.
On this I agree with you 100%.
I would rather choose assisted dying than end up in a home unable to recognise anyone or control my bladder or bowels.
Hopefully the assisted dying bill goes through, and gets liberalised like it has in Canada so people have that choice in the future. Forcing people to stay alive, against their wishes, is not a kindness.
To deal with the demented though it would have to be done without there consent
Or done in the earlier stages when people know they're declining and can see the writing on the wall.
I would abolish the 6 month requirement. Just have people be of sound mind and making sure they're certain.
There is a window of opportunity between diagnosis and when people are too far gone that people should be able to make that choice of their own free will, if they wish to do so. If they don't, that choice should be respected to.
Doesn't sound like you have dealt with dementia frankly, my father refused to believe and still does there is any issue. From talking to plenty of other people in similar situations it seems more unusual for people to admit the dementia in the early days when they could make the decision and still be compis mentis
Sadly, the first faculty to go is the ability to judge one's own faculties.
Yes and as I said I know a lot of people who have parents with dementia. There are support groups. Yet to hear anything other than the parent was in denial about it
Sadly I know many too.
Some absolutely in denial, 100%, even after the point the family felt they had no choice but to put their relative in a home they sadly still wanted to go home and were in complete denial that anything was wrong.
Some others knew what was happening to them, and were mortified by it.
I'm not sure certain which is worse. As Terry Pratchett put it "I felt like I had two diseases: One was Alzheimer's, and the other was knowing I had Alzheimer's."
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
We haven't, sorry. An 85 year old in 1841 had a life expectancy of 4 years. We've bumped that up to 6 in 190 years.
That seems like a reasonably significant increase, given that the chances of dying soon at that age, particularly for men, are relatively high. On top of which more people are making that age in the first place.
I guess so, but it hardly explains the increase in problems with dementia. The change in the last 30 years or so is tiny.
In 1950 the percentage of people who reached 80 was 0.6% now its over 5%.....therefore the increase in dementia and has substantially increased in percentage since 1990
(It must be a lot higher than 5%?)
The distinction here is our ability to keep 80 year olds going is not the primary factor why dementia caseload has increased so much. It's our ability to get so many more people to 80.
I think the other thing to bear in mind is not to get lost in the percentage changes. So, there has been a massive percentage increase in the number of people aged 95. But it's not that many people, compared with say the number of 65 year old men getting treatment for heart disease.
Wow no correlation between keeping people alive longer and an increase of a disease that comes with age.....shakes head
The increase is due to the increase in numbers of elderly, what @Eabhal is saying is that the risk to any individual elderly person is dropping.
Statins, BP control etc all help with vascular aging, so probably down to that, as well as falling alcohol consumption.
Nothing wrong with being old if you are fit. My folks are 90 and 88 this year, and require no paid help. We are off to a family birthday of my mother's older sister this weekend. She needs no outside help either, apart from her daughter taking her to the supermarket once a week.
And the preventative medicine for alzheimers is what? As far as I know there is none
The new weight loss drugs, according to reports in the past few days, protect against dementia. It looks like they might even get youngsters off their smartphones.
I would think the evidence of that is scant....how would you know till those people get into the late 70's or early 80's
They have been used for ages already for diabetes.
Ozempic the best know one was only approved in 2017 and the phase 2 trial was in 2008 so I don't think they have sufficient data for that claim frankly assuming they tested on the normal age ranges the number of patients on the phase 2 trial that are now 80 would be small
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.
Which, um, sort of explains why they might want to flee.
Basically 'How dare they say they are persecuted?' alongside 'And they are lucky they are getting away as we are and will be coming after them'
I don't know if the refugee designation is fair or not, but the ANC will probably make it an easy decision to defend given there's plenty in South Africa who would go even further than them in rhetoric.
Apparently “Umshini wami” is just bants.
Can’t help feeling that if I rocked up at a demo in London and started singing “Bring me my machine gun”, in connection with pretty much any social group, might be accused of being a bit racialist*.
*for some reason the word “racialist* conjures the image of a thin man in a pin stripe suit, bowler hat and a very, very tightly rolled umbrella. Why is this.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
Multi-generational households. Women not working. It's pretty simple.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Let's get even more controversial: how much of our GDP do we want to spend keeping elderly people alive who have dementia, and aren't aware of themselves or their families anymore, who perhaps rarely visit them?
I'm not asking this to be nasty, and I recognise it's an uncomfortable question, but it's one worth reflecting on because from the perspective of the public purse it's one I struggle to justify against other priorities.
On this I agree with you 100%.
I would rather choose assisted dying than end up in a home unable to recognise anyone or control my bladder or bowels.
Hopefully the assisted dying bill goes through, and gets liberalised like it has in Canada so people have that choice in the future. Forcing people to stay alive, against their wishes, is not a kindness.
To deal with the demented though it would have to be done without there consent
Or done in the earlier stages when people know they're declining and can see the writing on the wall.
I would abolish the 6 month requirement. Just have people be of sound mind and making sure they're certain.
There is a window of opportunity between diagnosis and when people are too far gone that people should be able to make that choice of their own free will, if they wish to do so. If they don't, that choice should be respected to.
Doesn't sound like you have dealt with dementia frankly, my father refused to believe and still does there is any issue. From talking to plenty of other people in similar situations it seems more unusual for people to admit the dementia in the early days when they could make the decision and still be compis mentis
Sadly, the first faculty to go is the ability to judge one's own faculties.
Yes and as I said I know a lot of people who have parents with dementia. There are support groups. Yet to hear anything other than the parent was in denial about it
Indeed. My Sister, Stepdad and I are convinced my Mother has it. Suffice to say she doesn’t and, sadly, my Stepdad just won’t do anything practical such as setting up power of attorney.
Power of Attorney is complicated to set up if she lacks capacity.
It's best done at the same time as writing a will, when still in sound mind.
She still has capacity but is clearly in decline and getting worse, and it is something my Sister and I have been suggesting really since the start of her decline. About 12 months ago.
They won’t put a will in place either.
At least my in laws have and they are both still in sound mind.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
We haven't, sorry. An 85 year old in 1841 had a life expectancy of 4 years. We've bumped that up to 6 in 190 years.
That seems like a reasonably significant increase, given that the chances of dying soon at that age, particularly for men, are relatively high. On top of which more people are making that age in the first place.
I guess so, but it hardly explains the increase in problems with dementia. The change in the last 30 years or so is tiny.
In 1950 the percentage of people who reached 80 was 0.6% now its over 5%.....therefore the increase in dementia and has substantially increased in percentage since 1990
(It must be a lot higher than 5%?)
The distinction here is our ability to keep 80 year olds going is not the primary factor why dementia caseload has increased so much. It's our ability to get so many more people to 80.
I think the other thing to bear in mind is not to get lost in the percentage changes. So, there has been a massive percentage increase in the number of people aged 95. But it's not that many people, compared with say the number of 65 year old men getting treatment for heart disease.
Wow no correlation between keeping people alive longer and an increase of a disease that comes with age.....shakes head
The increase is due to the increase in numbers of elderly, what @Eabhal is saying is that the risk to any individual elderly person is dropping.
Statins, BP control etc all help with vascular aging, so probably down to that, as well as falling alcohol consumption.
Nothing wrong with being old if you are fit. My folks are 90 and 88 this year, and require no paid help. We are off to a family birthday of my mother's older sister this weekend. She needs no outside help either, apart from her daughter taking her to the supermarket once a week.
And the preventative medicine for alzheimers is what? As far as I know there is none
The new weight loss drugs, according to reports in the past few days, protect against dementia. It looks like they might even get youngsters off their smartphones.
I would think the evidence of that is scant....how would you know till those people get into the late 70's or early 80's
They have been used for ages already for diabetes.
Ozempic the best know one was only approved in 2017 and the phase 2 trial was in 2008 so I don't think they have sufficient data for that claim frankly assuming they tested on the normal age ranges the number of patients on the phase 2 trial that are now 80 would be small
More institutional corruption incoming FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem is proposing changes to the statutes of motorsport's governing body that appear to further extend his control...
the list of presidential candidates and their teams, which are strictly defined, is monitored by the FIA's nominations committee.
If it finds any ethical issues with a list, it would refer the matter to the FIA's ethics committee.
Both bodies are controlled by the FIA president and his allies, following changes to the statutes made by Ben Sulayem last year.
What is it about sport that attracts scumbags at the highest levels?
Maybe this is why sport used to be amateur not professional.
The reason the Victorians despised professional sport was the example of Georgian sport. In Georgian times, cricket was hilariously corrupt, with vast sums wagered and matches thrown.
Like many of the things they did, the Victorian laws and rules were a reaction to what had happened previously.
The reason that gentleman’s clubs banned women and gambling was the result of the behaviour in those same clubs (quite often) a few decades before.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
We haven't, sorry. An 85 year old in 1841 had a life expectancy of 4 years. We've bumped that up to 6 in 190 years.
That seems like a reasonably significant increase, given that the chances of dying soon at that age, particularly for men, are relatively high. On top of which more people are making that age in the first place.
I guess so, but it hardly explains the increase in problems with dementia. The change in the last 30 years or so is tiny.
In 1950 the percentage of people who reached 80 was 0.6% now its over 5%.....therefore the increase in dementia and has substantially increased in percentage since 1990
(It must be a lot higher than 5%?)
The distinction here is our ability to keep 80 year olds going is not the primary factor why dementia caseload has increased so much. It's our ability to get so many more people to 80.
I think the other thing to bear in mind is not to get lost in the percentage changes. So, there has been a massive percentage increase in the number of people aged 95. But it's not that many people, compared with say the number of 65 year old men getting treatment for heart disease.
Wow no correlation between keeping people alive longer and an increase of a disease that comes with age.....shakes head
The increase is due to the increase in numbers of elderly, what @Eabhal is saying is that the risk to any individual elderly person is dropping.
Statins, BP control etc all help with vascular aging, so probably down to that, as well as falling alcohol consumption.
Nothing wrong with being old if you are fit. My folks are 90 and 88 this year, and require no paid help. We are off to a family birthday of my mother's older sister this weekend. She needs no outside help either, apart from her daughter taking her to the supermarket once a week.
And the preventative medicine for alzheimers is what? As far as I know there is none
There are effective drugs to stave off progression if given at the right point in the disease.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
We haven't, sorry. An 85 year old in 1841 had a life expectancy of 4 years. We've bumped that up to 6 in 190 years.
That seems like a reasonably significant increase, given that the chances of dying soon at that age, particularly for men, are relatively high. On top of which more people are making that age in the first place.
I guess so, but it hardly explains the increase in problems with dementia. The change in the last 30 years or so is tiny.
In 1950 the percentage of people who reached 80 was 0.6% now its over 5%.....therefore the increase in dementia and has substantially increased in percentage since 1990
(It must be a lot higher than 5%?)
The distinction here is our ability to keep 80 year olds going is not the primary factor why dementia caseload has increased so much. It's our ability to get so many more people to 80.
I think the other thing to bear in mind is not to get lost in the percentage changes. So, there has been a massive percentage increase in the number of people aged 95. But it's not that many people, compared with say the number of 65 year old men getting treatment for heart disease.
Wow no correlation between keeping people alive longer and an increase of a disease that comes with age.....shakes head
The increase is due to the increase in numbers of elderly, what @Eabhal is saying is that the risk to any individual elderly person is dropping.
Statins, BP control etc all help with vascular aging, so probably down to that, as well as falling alcohol consumption.
Nothing wrong with being old if you are fit. My folks are 90 and 88 this year, and require no paid help. We are off to a family birthday of my mother's older sister this weekend. She needs no outside help either, apart from her daughter taking her to the supermarket once a week.
And the preventative medicine for alzheimers is what? As far as I know there is none
The new weight loss drugs, according to reports in the past few days, protect against dementia. It looks like they might even get youngsters off their smartphones.
I would think the evidence of that is scant....how would you know till those people get into the late 70's or early 80's
They have been used for ages already for diabetes.
Ozempic the best know one was only approved in 2017 and the phase 2 trial was in 2008 so I don't think they have sufficient data for that claim frankly assuming they tested on the normal age ranges the number of patients on the phase 2 trial that are now 80 would be small
Experts say this is likely to take years, which means the plane may not be ready for use until near the end of Trump's term. Trump has said the plane will go directly to his presidential library after he leaves office, and that he "wouldn't be using it" after his presidency.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
We haven't, sorry. An 85 year old in 1841 had a life expectancy of 4 years. We've bumped that up to 6 in 190 years.
That seems like a reasonably significant increase, given that the chances of dying soon at that age, particularly for men, are relatively high. On top of which more people are making that age in the first place.
I guess so, but it hardly explains the increase in problems with dementia. The change in the last 30 years or so is tiny.
In 1950 the percentage of people who reached 80 was 0.6% now its over 5%.....therefore the increase in dementia and has substantially increased in percentage since 1990
(It must be a lot higher than 5%?)
The distinction here is our ability to keep 80 year olds going is not the primary factor why dementia caseload has increased so much. It's our ability to get so many more people to 80.
I think the other thing to bear in mind is not to get lost in the percentage changes. So, there has been a massive percentage increase in the number of people aged 95. But it's not that many people, compared with say the number of 65 year old men getting treatment for heart disease.
Wow no correlation between keeping people alive longer and an increase of a disease that comes with age.....shakes head
The increase is due to the increase in numbers of elderly, what @Eabhal is saying is that the risk to any individual elderly person is dropping.
Statins, BP control etc all help with vascular aging, so probably down to that, as well as falling alcohol consumption.
Nothing wrong with being old if you are fit. My folks are 90 and 88 this year, and require no paid help. We are off to a family birthday of my mother's older sister this weekend. She needs no outside help either, apart from her daughter taking her to the supermarket once a week.
And the preventative medicine for alzheimers is what? As far as I know there is none
The new weight loss drugs, according to reports in the past few days, protect against dementia. It looks like they might even get youngsters off their smartphones.
I would think the evidence of that is scant....how would you know till those people get into the late 70's or early 80's
They have been used for ages already for diabetes.
Ozempic the best know one was only approved in 2017 and the phase 2 trial was in 2008 so I don't think they have sufficient data for that claim frankly assuming they tested on the normal age ranges the number of patients on the phase 2 trial that are now 80 would be small
While interesting and something to be welcomed....slowing the progression is not the same as preventing the disease
It's a very usefull thing to slow progression. It's how we treat a lot of conditions.
I remember seeing figures along the lines that delaying the need for institutional care in dementia by a couple of years reduces the need for it by half. I don't have the reference to hand, but something along those lines.
Good to see the Holyrood doing some sensible governance. 👍
It's a shame that the issues that result in free votes without party lines are genuinely the most difficult ones to come to a decision on, as otherwise they seem to be the issues where parliaments rise to the occasion best (in recent modernity, anyway).
Experts say this is likely to take years, which means the plane may not be ready for use until near the end of Trump's term. Trump has said the plane will go directly to his presidential library after he leaves office, and that he "wouldn't be using it" after his presidency.
Experts say this is likely to take years, which means the plane may not be ready for use until near the end of Trump's term. Trump has said the plane will go directly to his presidential library after he leaves office, and that he "wouldn't be using it" after his presidency.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
We haven't, sorry. An 85 year old in 1841 had a life expectancy of 4 years. We've bumped that up to 6 in 190 years.
That seems like a reasonably significant increase, given that the chances of dying soon at that age, particularly for men, are relatively high. On top of which more people are making that age in the first place.
I guess so, but it hardly explains the increase in problems with dementia. The change in the last 30 years or so is tiny.
In 1950 the percentage of people who reached 80 was 0.6% now its over 5%.....therefore the increase in dementia and has substantially increased in percentage since 1990
(It must be a lot higher than 5%?)
The distinction here is our ability to keep 80 year olds going is not the primary factor why dementia caseload has increased so much. It's our ability to get so many more people to 80.
I think the other thing to bear in mind is not to get lost in the percentage changes. So, there has been a massive percentage increase in the number of people aged 95. But it's not that many people, compared with say the number of 65 year old men getting treatment for heart disease.
Wow no correlation between keeping people alive longer and an increase of a disease that comes with age.....shakes head
The increase is due to the increase in numbers of elderly, what @Eabhal is saying is that the risk to any individual elderly person is dropping.
Statins, BP control etc all help with vascular aging, so probably down to that, as well as falling alcohol consumption.
Nothing wrong with being old if you are fit. My folks are 90 and 88 this year, and require no paid help. We are off to a family birthday of my mother's older sister this weekend. She needs no outside help either, apart from her daughter taking her to the supermarket once a week.
And the preventative medicine for alzheimers is what? As far as I know there is none
The new weight loss drugs, according to reports in the past few days, protect against dementia. It looks like they might even get youngsters off their smartphones.
I would think the evidence of that is scant....how would you know till those people get into the late 70's or early 80's
They have been used for ages already for diabetes.
Ozempic the best know one was only approved in 2017 and the phase 2 trial was in 2008 so I don't think they have sufficient data for that claim frankly assuming they tested on the normal age ranges the number of patients on the phase 2 trial that are now 80 would be small
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
We haven't, sorry. An 85 year old in 1841 had a life expectancy of 4 years. We've bumped that up to 6 in 190 years.
That seems like a reasonably significant increase, given that the chances of dying soon at that age, particularly for men, are relatively high. On top of which more people are making that age in the first place.
I guess so, but it hardly explains the increase in problems with dementia. The change in the last 30 years or so is tiny.
In 1950 the percentage of people who reached 80 was 0.6% now its over 5%.....therefore the increase in dementia and has substantially increased in percentage since 1990
(It must be a lot higher than 5%?)
The distinction here is our ability to keep 80 year olds going is not the primary factor why dementia caseload has increased so much. It's our ability to get so many more people to 80.
I think the other thing to bear in mind is not to get lost in the percentage changes. So, there has been a massive percentage increase in the number of people aged 95. But it's not that many people, compared with say the number of 65 year old men getting treatment for heart disease.
Wow no correlation between keeping people alive longer and an increase of a disease that comes with age.....shakes head
The increase is due to the increase in numbers of elderly, what @Eabhal is saying is that the risk to any individual elderly person is dropping.
Statins, BP control etc all help with vascular aging, so probably down to that, as well as falling alcohol consumption.
Nothing wrong with being old if you are fit. My folks are 90 and 88 this year, and require no paid help. We are off to a family birthday of my mother's older sister this weekend. She needs no outside help either, apart from her daughter taking her to the supermarket once a week.
And the preventative medicine for alzheimers is what? As far as I know there is none
The new weight loss drugs, according to reports in the past few days, protect against dementia. It looks like they might even get youngsters off their smartphones.
I would think the evidence of that is scant....how would you know till those people get into the late 70's or early 80's
They have been used for ages already for diabetes.
Ozempic the best know one was only approved in 2017 and the phase 2 trial was in 2008 so I don't think they have sufficient data for that claim frankly assuming they tested on the normal age ranges the number of patients on the phase 2 trial that are now 80 would be small
While interesting and something to be welcomed....slowing the progression is not the same as preventing the disease
One of the issues with my father as well and many others is it took us six years to get him diagnosed. Six years in which he almost burnt his flat down, went missing on multiple occasions because he had remembered stuff such as my leave is up I need to report back to the ship as we are being deployed....so even if it slows the decline we wouldn't have got it prescribed in any case....was less than a year till we had to put him in a home because he was a danger to himself and needed more care than could be provided
Experts say this is likely to take years, which means the plane may not be ready for use until near the end of Trump's term. Trump has said the plane will go directly to his presidential library after he leaves office, and that he "wouldn't be using it" after his presidency.
I don’t get the logic of giving it to the presidential library making it less of a bribe… surely you should just leave it with the DoD then…
My only guess is that Trump will just try and continue to use it as its his library....
The plan is to give it to the Trump Presidential Library Foundation, a charity controlled by Trump, so he gets a private plane, as opposed to giving it to the Trump Presidential Library, which is effectively part of the government. IIRC.
"The University of Greater Manchester has suspended its vice chancellor following "serious allegations".
Professor George Holmes, who has led the university for 20 years, has been suspended alongside two senior members of academic staff at the institution, formerly known as the University of Bolton.
It comes after the university commissioned an independent investigation into recent allegations made about the institution in Bolton."
He's only paid ballpark £300k, so it wouldn't be beyond sympathy if something had to be done to top that up. Thoughts and prayers.
It is day two of outrage over Keir Starmer’s speech launching the government’s immigration white paper.
Sadiq Khan, the Labour mayor of London, said the “island of strangers” phrase was “not the sort of words I would use”, while Eluned Morgan, Labour first minister of Wales, said: “I will not be drawn into a debate where people are using divisive language when it comes to immigration.”
Public opinion, on the other hand, has remained stoically unmoved. YouGov asked: “In a speech yesterday Keir Starmer said that without fair immigration rules ‘we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together’. Which of the following comes closest to your view...
“I agree with the sentiment, and take no issue with the language”: 41 per cent
“I agree with the sentiment, but don’t think the language was appropriate”: 12 per cent
“I disagree with the sentiment, but take no issue with the language”: 9 per cent
“I disagree with the sentiment, and don't think the language was appropriate”: 18 per cent
While 20 per cent said they didn’t know.
More worryingly for Starmer, only 20 per cent said they thought the new policies would reduce immigration; 41 per cent said they would make no difference; and 9 per cent said they would increase it (30 per cent didn’t know or hadn’t heard of the policies).
That’s not more worryingly for Starmer, he’ll exceed expectations given the fall already baked in.
I don't think that follows.
Objections to immigration are generally about cultural change, as well as pressures on housing etc, so are mainly about the immigrants that are already here, often for several generations.
Enoch Powells infamous speech was 1968 when we had net emigration, and Mrs Thatchers remarks that Britain was being swamped also was in a year with net emigration. The National Front marches were in those years too. Indeed as recently as 1992 we had net emigration, yet race relations have always been an issue.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
We haven't, sorry. An 85 year old in 1841 had a life expectancy of 4 years. We've bumped that up to 6 in 190 years.
That seems like a reasonably significant increase, given that the chances of dying soon at that age, particularly for men, are relatively high. On top of which more people are making that age in the first place.
I guess so, but it hardly explains the increase in problems with dementia. The change in the last 30 years or so is tiny.
In 1950 the percentage of people who reached 80 was 0.6% now its over 5%.....therefore the increase in dementia and has substantially increased in percentage since 1990
(It must be a lot higher than 5%?)
The distinction here is our ability to keep 80 year olds going is not the primary factor why dementia caseload has increased so much. It's our ability to get so many more people to 80.
I think the other thing to bear in mind is not to get lost in the percentage changes. So, there has been a massive percentage increase in the number of people aged 95. But it's not that many people, compared with say the number of 65 year old men getting treatment for heart disease.
Wow no correlation between keeping people alive longer and an increase of a disease that comes with age.....shakes head
The increase is due to the increase in numbers of elderly, what @Eabhal is saying is that the risk to any individual elderly person is dropping.
Statins, BP control etc all help with vascular aging, so probably down to that, as well as falling alcohol consumption.
Nothing wrong with being old if you are fit. My folks are 90 and 88 this year, and require no paid help. We are off to a family birthday of my mother's older sister this weekend. She needs no outside help either, apart from her daughter taking her to the supermarket once a week.
And the preventative medicine for alzheimers is what? As far as I know there is none
The new weight loss drugs, according to reports in the past few days, protect against dementia. It looks like they might even get youngsters off their smartphones.
I would think the evidence of that is scant....how would you know till those people get into the late 70's or early 80's
They have been used for ages already for diabetes.
Ozempic the best know one was only approved in 2017 and the phase 2 trial was in 2008 so I don't think they have sufficient data for that claim frankly assuming they tested on the normal age ranges the number of patients on the phase 2 trial that are now 80 would be small
"The University of Greater Manchester has suspended its vice chancellor following "serious allegations".
Professor George Holmes, who has led the university for 20 years, has been suspended alongside two senior members of academic staff at the institution, formerly known as the University of Bolton.
It comes after the university commissioned an independent investigation into recent allegations made about the institution in Bolton."
He's only paid ballpark £300k, so it wouldn't be beyond sympathy if something had to be done to top that up. Thoughts and prayers.
Wasn't the University of Bolton V.C. the highest paid of them all at one point?
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
We haven't, sorry. An 85 year old in 1841 had a life expectancy of 4 years. We've bumped that up to 6 in 190 years.
That seems like a reasonably significant increase, given that the chances of dying soon at that age, particularly for men, are relatively high. On top of which more people are making that age in the first place.
I guess so, but it hardly explains the increase in problems with dementia. The change in the last 30 years or so is tiny.
In 1950 the percentage of people who reached 80 was 0.6% now its over 5%.....therefore the increase in dementia and has substantially increased in percentage since 1990
(It must be a lot higher than 5%?)
The distinction here is our ability to keep 80 year olds going is not the primary factor why dementia caseload has increased so much. It's our ability to get so many more people to 80.
I think the other thing to bear in mind is not to get lost in the percentage changes. So, there has been a massive percentage increase in the number of people aged 95. But it's not that many people, compared with say the number of 65 year old men getting treatment for heart disease.
Wow no correlation between keeping people alive longer and an increase of a disease that comes with age.....shakes head
The increase is due to the increase in numbers of elderly, what @Eabhal is saying is that the risk to any individual elderly person is dropping.
Statins, BP control etc all help with vascular aging, so probably down to that, as well as falling alcohol consumption.
Nothing wrong with being old if you are fit. My folks are 90 and 88 this year, and require no paid help. We are off to a family birthday of my mother's older sister this weekend. She needs no outside help either, apart from her daughter taking her to the supermarket once a week.
And the preventative medicine for alzheimers is what? As far as I know there is none
There are effective drugs to stave off progression if given at the right point in the disease.
I have always wondered if an Alzheimers diagnosis should be met with drinking a bottle of Pomerol and opening your veins in a warm bath, while you are still compost mentis.
Good to see the Holyrood doing some sensible governance. 👍
It's a shame that the issues that result in free votes without party lines are genuinely the most difficult ones to come to a decision on, as otherwise they seem to be the issues where parliaments rise to the occasion best (in recent modernity, anyway).
I've sometimes thought it would be an interesting experiment to give them two votes. One that is recorded and one that is truly anonymous. I'm sure the "But... is it really anonymous?" would hang over the latter - but it'd still be interesting I think.
More institutional corruption incoming FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem is proposing changes to the statutes of motorsport's governing body that appear to further extend his control...
the list of presidential candidates and their teams, which are strictly defined, is monitored by the FIA's nominations committee.
If it finds any ethical issues with a list, it would refer the matter to the FIA's ethics committee.
Both bodies are controlled by the FIA president and his allies, following changes to the statutes made by Ben Sulayem last year.
What is it about sport that attracts scumbags at the highest levels?
Maybe this is why sport used to be amateur not professional.
The reason the Victorians despised professional sport was the example of Georgian sport. In Georgian times, cricket was hilariously corrupt, with vast sums wagered and matches thrown.
Like many of the things they did, the Victorian laws and rules were a reaction to what had happened previously.
The reason that gentleman’s clubs banned women and gambling was the result of the behaviour in those same clubs (quite often) a few decades before.
Yes. A little known fact is that the phrase "It's just not cricket" was originally sarcastic. Cricket being a byword for drinking, fighting, gambling, prostitution, match fixing, violence and a host of other things that the kind of people who would rather not spend their day of rest at Church or in Bible study might find entertaining.
It is day two of outrage over Keir Starmer’s speech launching the government’s immigration white paper.
Sadiq Khan, the Labour mayor of London, said the “island of strangers” phrase was “not the sort of words I would use”, while Eluned Morgan, Labour first minister of Wales, said: “I will not be drawn into a debate where people are using divisive language when it comes to immigration.”
Public opinion, on the other hand, has remained stoically unmoved. YouGov asked: “In a speech yesterday Keir Starmer said that without fair immigration rules ‘we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together’. Which of the following comes closest to your view...
“I agree with the sentiment, and take no issue with the language”: 41 per cent
“I agree with the sentiment, but don’t think the language was appropriate”: 12 per cent
“I disagree with the sentiment, but take no issue with the language”: 9 per cent
“I disagree with the sentiment, and don't think the language was appropriate”: 18 per cent
While 20 per cent said they didn’t know.
More worryingly for Starmer, only 20 per cent said they thought the new policies would reduce immigration; 41 per cent said they would make no difference; and 9 per cent said they would increase it (30 per cent didn’t know or hadn’t heard of the policies).
That’s not more worryingly for Starmer, he’ll exceed expectations given the fall already baked in.
I don't think that follows.
Objections to immigration are generally about cultural change, as well as pressures on housing etc, so are mainly about the immigrants that are already here, often for several generations.
Enoch Powells infamous speech was 1968 when we had net emigration, and Mrs Thatchers remarks that Britain was being swamped also was in a year with net emigration. The National Front marches were in those years too. Indeed as recently as 1992 we had net emigration, yet race relations have always been an issue.
Starmer needs to win over about 5% of voters that are not normally fussed by immigration but are recently due to the extreme high levels. If he gets the numbers down that feels perfectly plausible even if the original kippers and Reform enthusiasts continue to despise him.
There are a lot of interesting old politics shows on youtube. I watched quite a few during indyref and the brexit vote. I seem to remember enjoying one which had Enoch Powell and Winnie Ewing on. Remarkable how much time people were given to express themselves and their ideas rather than just 'Sound! Bite! Now!'.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
No point arguing with him he still believes housing has been growing faster than population
Oh I've got some even better stats up my sleeve on that front.
Post away because its obvious you are wrong and we will happily pick holes in the argument that since 2000 we built more homes than we imported people
Well, that's different to growing faster. Which is it?
Evidence that there are more homes per capita than there were back in 2000
Number of homes per person in 2000 = 0.43 Number of homes per person in 2023 = 0.44
But at the wealthier end there has been an explosion in second home, BTL and holiday let ownership, leaving fewer homes per person available for younger folk.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
We haven't, sorry. An 85 year old in 1841 had a life expectancy of 4 years. We've bumped that up to 6 in 190 years.
That seems like a reasonably significant increase, given that the chances of dying soon at that age, particularly for men, are relatively high. On top of which more people are making that age in the first place.
I guess so, but it hardly explains the increase in problems with dementia. The change in the last 30 years or so is tiny.
In 1950 the percentage of people who reached 80 was 0.6% now its over 5%.....therefore the increase in dementia and has substantially increased in percentage since 1990
(It must be a lot higher than 5%?)
The distinction here is our ability to keep 80 year olds going is not the primary factor why dementia caseload has increased so much. It's our ability to get so many more people to 80.
I think the other thing to bear in mind is not to get lost in the percentage changes. So, there has been a massive percentage increase in the number of people aged 95. But it's not that many people, compared with say the number of 65 year old men getting treatment for heart disease.
Wow no correlation between keeping people alive longer and an increase of a disease that comes with age.....shakes head
The increase is due to the increase in numbers of elderly, what @Eabhal is saying is that the risk to any individual elderly person is dropping.
Statins, BP control etc all help with vascular aging, so probably down to that, as well as falling alcohol consumption.
Nothing wrong with being old if you are fit. My folks are 90 and 88 this year, and require no paid help. We are off to a family birthday of my mother's older sister this weekend. She needs no outside help either, apart from her daughter taking her to the supermarket once a week.
And the preventative medicine for alzheimers is what? As far as I know there is none
The new weight loss drugs, according to reports in the past few days, protect against dementia. It looks like they might even get youngsters off their smartphones.
I would think the evidence of that is scant....how would you know till those people get into the late 70's or early 80's
They have been used for ages already for diabetes.
Ozempic the best know one was only approved in 2017 and the phase 2 trial was in 2008 so I don't think they have sufficient data for that claim frankly assuming they tested on the normal age ranges the number of patients on the phase 2 trial that are now 80 would be small
While interesting and something to be welcomed....slowing the progression is not the same as preventing the disease
One of the issues with my father as well and many others is it took us six years to get him diagnosed. Six years in which he almost burnt his flat down, went missing on multiple occasions because he had remembered stuff such as my leave is up I need to report back to the ship as we are being deployed....so even if it slows the decline we wouldn't have got it prescribed in any case....was less than a year till we had to put him in a home because he was a danger to himself and needed more care than could be provided
My biggest issue with my father’s dementia and physical and mental decline is that if I could have him back to life I would do anything to clean him up, bath him, wipe his arse, just to have the chance for another drink and a chat with him and to give him a hug.
I honestly had other things in my life and my “own problems” where I felt he would be there forever.
I would do anything to re-do his last couple of years so make sure that if you feel you need to talk, spend time, understand things, do it now and not have the brutal regret I live with daily.
The trouble with assisted dying is that medicine is now advancing so rapidly - and will likely accelerate - that it is possible diseases like dementia will be cured entirely in the next few years. Not just slowed. Or even halted. Cured
Shuffling nonna off to the reaper is fine and dandy if she’s miserable and doomed. But what if she could be healed again within a year?
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
We haven't, sorry. An 85 year old in 1841 had a life expectancy of 4 years. We've bumped that up to 6 in 190 years.
That seems like a reasonably significant increase, given that the chances of dying soon at that age, particularly for men, are relatively high. On top of which more people are making that age in the first place.
I guess so, but it hardly explains the increase in problems with dementia. The change in the last 30 years or so is tiny.
In 1950 the percentage of people who reached 80 was 0.6% now its over 5%.....therefore the increase in dementia and has substantially increased in percentage since 1990
(It must be a lot higher than 5%?)
The distinction here is our ability to keep 80 year olds going is not the primary factor why dementia caseload has increased so much. It's our ability to get so many more people to 80.
I think the other thing to bear in mind is not to get lost in the percentage changes. So, there has been a massive percentage increase in the number of people aged 95. But it's not that many people, compared with say the number of 65 year old men getting treatment for heart disease.
Wow no correlation between keeping people alive longer and an increase of a disease that comes with age.....shakes head
The increase is due to the increase in numbers of elderly, what @Eabhal is saying is that the risk to any individual elderly person is dropping.
Statins, BP control etc all help with vascular aging, so probably down to that, as well as falling alcohol consumption.
Nothing wrong with being old if you are fit. My folks are 90 and 88 this year, and require no paid help. We are off to a family birthday of my mother's older sister this weekend. She needs no outside help either, apart from her daughter taking her to the supermarket once a week.
And the preventative medicine for alzheimers is what? As far as I know there is none
The new weight loss drugs, according to reports in the past few days, protect against dementia. It looks like they might even get youngsters off their smartphones.
I would think the evidence of that is scant....how would you know till those people get into the late 70's or early 80's
They give the drugs directly to patients already affected and see if they help.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
We haven't, sorry. An 85 year old in 1841 had a life expectancy of 4 years. We've bumped that up to 6 in 190 years.
That seems like a reasonably significant increase, given that the chances of dying soon at that age, particularly for men, are relatively high. On top of which more people are making that age in the first place.
I guess so, but it hardly explains the increase in problems with dementia. The change in the last 30 years or so is tiny.
In 1950 the percentage of people who reached 80 was 0.6% now its over 5%.....therefore the increase in dementia and has substantially increased in percentage since 1990
(It must be a lot higher than 5%?)
The distinction here is our ability to keep 80 year olds going is not the primary factor why dementia caseload has increased so much. It's our ability to get so many more people to 80.
I think the other thing to bear in mind is not to get lost in the percentage changes. So, there has been a massive percentage increase in the number of people aged 95. But it's not that many people, compared with say the number of 65 year old men getting treatment for heart disease.
Wow no correlation between keeping people alive longer and an increase of a disease that comes with age.....shakes head
The increase is due to the increase in numbers of elderly, what @Eabhal is saying is that the risk to any individual elderly person is dropping.
Statins, BP control etc all help with vascular aging, so probably down to that, as well as falling alcohol consumption.
Nothing wrong with being old if you are fit. My folks are 90 and 88 this year, and require no paid help. We are off to a family birthday of my mother's older sister this weekend. She needs no outside help either, apart from her daughter taking her to the supermarket once a week.
And the preventative medicine for alzheimers is what? As far as I know there is none
There are effective drugs to stave off progression if given at the right point in the disease.
I have always wondered if an Alzheimers diagnosis should be met with drinking a bottle of Pomerol and opening your veins in a warm bath, while you are still compost mentis.
I'd have thought cutting your veins in a warm bath would be very painful.
Experts say this is likely to take years, which means the plane may not be ready for use until near the end of Trump's term. Trump has said the plane will go directly to his presidential library after he leaves office, and that he "wouldn't be using it" after his presidency.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
We haven't, sorry. An 85 year old in 1841 had a life expectancy of 4 years. We've bumped that up to 6 in 190 years.
That seems like a reasonably significant increase, given that the chances of dying soon at that age, particularly for men, are relatively high. On top of which more people are making that age in the first place.
I guess so, but it hardly explains the increase in problems with dementia. The change in the last 30 years or so is tiny.
In 1950 the percentage of people who reached 80 was 0.6% now its over 5%.....therefore the increase in dementia and has substantially increased in percentage since 1990
(It must be a lot higher than 5%?)
The distinction here is our ability to keep 80 year olds going is not the primary factor why dementia caseload has increased so much. It's our ability to get so many more people to 80.
I think the other thing to bear in mind is not to get lost in the percentage changes. So, there has been a massive percentage increase in the number of people aged 95. But it's not that many people, compared with say the number of 65 year old men getting treatment for heart disease.
Wow no correlation between keeping people alive longer and an increase of a disease that comes with age.....shakes head
The increase is due to the increase in numbers of elderly, what @Eabhal is saying is that the risk to any individual elderly person is dropping.
Statins, BP control etc all help with vascular aging, so probably down to that, as well as falling alcohol consumption.
Nothing wrong with being old if you are fit. My folks are 90 and 88 this year, and require no paid help. We are off to a family birthday of my mother's older sister this weekend. She needs no outside help either, apart from her daughter taking her to the supermarket once a week.
And the preventative medicine for alzheimers is what? As far as I know there is none
There are effective drugs to stave off progression if given at the right point in the disease.
I have always wondered if an Alzheimers diagnosis should be met with drinking a bottle of Pomerol and opening your veins in a warm bath, while you are still compost mentis.
I'd have thought cutting your veins in a warm bath would be very painful.
The trouble with assisted dying is that medicine is now advancing so rapidly - and will likely accelerate - that it is possible diseases like dementia will be cured entirely in the next few years. Not just slowed. Or even halted. Cured
Shuffling nonna off to the reaper is fine and dandy if she’s miserable and doomed. But what if she could be healed again within a year?
You wont be eligible for assisted death purely because of dementia.
Experts say this is likely to take years, which means the plane may not be ready for use until near the end of Trump's term. Trump has said the plane will go directly to his presidential library after he leaves office, and that he "wouldn't be using it" after his presidency.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
We haven't, sorry. An 85 year old in 1841 had a life expectancy of 4 years. We've bumped that up to 6 in 190 years.
That seems like a reasonably significant increase, given that the chances of dying soon at that age, particularly for men, are relatively high. On top of which more people are making that age in the first place.
I guess so, but it hardly explains the increase in problems with dementia. The change in the last 30 years or so is tiny.
In 1950 the percentage of people who reached 80 was 0.6% now its over 5%.....therefore the increase in dementia and has substantially increased in percentage since 1990
(It must be a lot higher than 5%?)
The distinction here is our ability to keep 80 year olds going is not the primary factor why dementia caseload has increased so much. It's our ability to get so many more people to 80.
I think the other thing to bear in mind is not to get lost in the percentage changes. So, there has been a massive percentage increase in the number of people aged 95. But it's not that many people, compared with say the number of 65 year old men getting treatment for heart disease.
Wow no correlation between keeping people alive longer and an increase of a disease that comes with age.....shakes head
The increase is due to the increase in numbers of elderly, what @Eabhal is saying is that the risk to any individual elderly person is dropping.
Statins, BP control etc all help with vascular aging, so probably down to that, as well as falling alcohol consumption.
Nothing wrong with being old if you are fit. My folks are 90 and 88 this year, and require no paid help. We are off to a family birthday of my mother's older sister this weekend. She needs no outside help either, apart from her daughter taking her to the supermarket once a week.
And the preventative medicine for alzheimers is what? As far as I know there is none
There are effective drugs to stave off progression if given at the right point in the disease.
I have always wondered if an Alzheimers diagnosis should be met with drinking a bottle of Pomerol and opening your veins in a warm bath, while you are still compost mentis.
I believe you can maintain a very good quality of life for a long time consuming healthy fats regularly, as Alzheimers appears from some research to prevent the brain feeding on glucose, so you feed it on ketones (fat burning) instead.
The trouble with assisted dying is that medicine is now advancing so rapidly - and will likely accelerate - that it is possible diseases like dementia will be cured entirely in the next few years. Not just slowed. Or even halted. Cured
Shuffling nonna off to the reaper is fine and dandy if she’s miserable and doomed. But what if she could be healed again within a year?
Why is that "trouble"? Just let people choose and take ownership of their choices.
Some people wouldn't switch off life support as they live in hope of a miracle/cure, others would.
This is just the same. If people want to hope and take their chances, that's their choice. If people want to call it quits, that's their choice.
It is day two of outrage over Keir Starmer’s speech launching the government’s immigration white paper.
Sadiq Khan, the Labour mayor of London, said the “island of strangers” phrase was “not the sort of words I would use”, while Eluned Morgan, Labour first minister of Wales, said: “I will not be drawn into a debate where people are using divisive language when it comes to immigration.”
Public opinion, on the other hand, has remained stoically unmoved. YouGov asked: “In a speech yesterday Keir Starmer said that without fair immigration rules ‘we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together’. Which of the following comes closest to your view...
“I agree with the sentiment, and take no issue with the language”: 41 per cent
“I agree with the sentiment, but don’t think the language was appropriate”: 12 per cent
“I disagree with the sentiment, but take no issue with the language”: 9 per cent
“I disagree with the sentiment, and don't think the language was appropriate”: 18 per cent
While 20 per cent said they didn’t know.
More worryingly for Starmer, only 20 per cent said they thought the new policies would reduce immigration; 41 per cent said they would make no difference; and 9 per cent said they would increase it (30 per cent didn’t know or hadn’t heard of the policies).
That’s not more worryingly for Starmer, he’ll exceed expectations given the fall already baked in.
I don't think that follows.
Objections to immigration are generally about cultural change, as well as pressures on housing etc, so are mainly about the immigrants that are already here, often for several generations.
Enoch Powells infamous speech was 1968 when we had net emigration, and Mrs Thatchers remarks that Britain was being swamped also was in a year with net emigration. The National Front marches were in those years too. Indeed as recently as 1992 we had net emigration, yet race relations have always been an issue.
Starmer needs to win over about 5% of voters that are not normally fussed by immigration but are recently due to the extreme high levels. If he gets the numbers down that feels perfectly plausible even if the original kippers and Reform enthusiasts continue to despise him.
Also, I'm pretty sure that it's a Yes, Minister aphorism that the best place for the drastic stuff is in the title and forward, not the actual measures.
If a speech, some not-that-drastic extra measures and some better competence than Boris gets numbers back to something enough voters can live with, then hey ho.
The trouble with assisted dying is that medicine is now advancing so rapidly - and will likely accelerate - that it is possible diseases like dementia will be cured entirely in the next few years. Not just slowed. Or even halted. Cured
Shuffling nonna off to the reaper is fine and dandy if she’s miserable and doomed. But what if she could be healed again within a year?
Don’t let that get in the way of the inheritance! Not sure you can reverse dementia though .
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.of
The trouble with assisted dying is that medicine is now advancing so rapidly - and will likely accelerate - that it is possible diseases like dementia will be cured entirely in the next few years. Not just slowed. Or even halted. Cured
Shuffling nonna off to the reaper is fine and dandy if she’s miserable and doomed. But what if she could be healed again within a year?
While I hope you are correct, nothing we've done in medicine has made the slightest difference to dementia.
There's a lot of reason to be very hopeful about cancer, where I think immunotherapy is completely changing the game. But pretty much drug on the dementia side -particularly the plaque removing ones that everyone was so excited about- has been a complete bust.
Once the brain stops working, there's little evidence of anything coming along to stop the decline, let alone reverse it.
It is day two of outrage over Keir Starmer’s speech launching the government’s immigration white paper.
Sadiq Khan, the Labour mayor of London, said the “island of strangers” phrase was “not the sort of words I would use”, while Eluned Morgan, Labour first minister of Wales, said: “I will not be drawn into a debate where people are using divisive language when it comes to immigration.”
Public opinion, on the other hand, has remained stoically unmoved. YouGov asked: “In a speech yesterday Keir Starmer said that without fair immigration rules ‘we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together’. Which of the following comes closest to your view...
“I agree with the sentiment, and take no issue with the language”: 41 per cent
“I agree with the sentiment, but don’t think the language was appropriate”: 12 per cent
“I disagree with the sentiment, but take no issue with the language”: 9 per cent
“I disagree with the sentiment, and don't think the language was appropriate”: 18 per cent
While 20 per cent said they didn’t know.
More worryingly for Starmer, only 20 per cent said they thought the new policies would reduce immigration; 41 per cent said they would make no difference; and 9 per cent said they would increase it (30 per cent didn’t know or hadn’t heard of the policies).
That’s not more worryingly for Starmer, he’ll exceed expectations given the fall already baked in.
I don't think that follows.
Objections to immigration are generally about cultural change, as well as pressures on housing etc, so are mainly about the immigrants that are already here, often for several generations.
Enoch Powells infamous speech was 1968 when we had net emigration, and Mrs Thatchers remarks that Britain was being swamped also was in a year with net emigration. The National Front marches were in those years too. Indeed as recently as 1992 we had net emigration, yet race relations have always been an issue.
Starmer needs to win over about 5% of voters that are not normally fussed by immigration but are recently due to the extreme high levels. If he gets the numbers down that feels perfectly plausible even if the original kippers and Reform enthusiasts continue to despise him.
Also, I'm pretty sure that it's a Yes, Minister aphorism that the best place for the drastic stuff is in the title and forward, not the actual measures.
If a speech, some not-that-drastic extra measures and some better competence than Boris gets numbers back to something enough voters can live with, then hey ho.
America takes a similar approach – land of the free is kept for the song, not the statute book or even while crossing the road.
The trouble with assisted dying is that medicine is now advancing so rapidly - and will likely accelerate - that it is possible diseases like dementia will be cured entirely in the next few years. Not just slowed. Or even halted. Cured
Shuffling nonna off to the reaper is fine and dandy if she’s miserable and doomed. But what if she could be healed again within a year?
Don’t let that get in the way of the inheritance! Not sure you can reverse dementia though .
Though if we postpone death long enough, nobody is getting any more inheritances...
The trouble with assisted dying is that medicine is now advancing so rapidly - and will likely accelerate - that it is possible diseases like dementia will be cured entirely in the next few years. Not just slowed. Or even halted. Cured
Shuffling nonna off to the reaper is fine and dandy if she’s miserable and doomed. But what if she could be healed again within a year?
Don’t let that get in the way of the inheritance! Not sure you can reverse dementia though .
It's certainly very possible to reverse dementia, but I don't think you could recover the lost memories.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
No point arguing with him he still believes housing has been growing faster than population
Oh I've got some even better stats up my sleeve on that front.
Post away because its obvious you are wrong and we will happily pick holes in the argument that since 2000 we built more homes than we imported people
Well, that's different to growing faster. Which is it?
Evidence that there are more homes per capita than there were back in 2000
Number of homes per person in 2000 = 0.43 Number of homes per person in 2023 = 0.44
But at the wealthier end there has been an explosion in second home, BTL and holiday let ownership, leaving fewer homes per person available for younger folk.
Probably bigger still is under occupancy. There's little financial incentive to move to a smaller place. Mrs Foxy and I have 4 bedrooms between us , and have overnight guests a few times a year.
"The University of Greater Manchester has suspended its vice chancellor following "serious allegations".
Professor George Holmes, who has led the university for 20 years, has been suspended alongside two senior members of academic staff at the institution, formerly known as the University of Bolton.
It comes after the university commissioned an independent investigation into recent allegations made about the institution in Bolton."
He's only paid ballpark £300k, so it wouldn't be beyond sympathy if something had to be done to top that up. Thoughts and prayers.
Wasn't the University of Bolton V.C. the highest paid of them all at one point?
Somewhere there must be a table of VC salaries and 'number of staff they intend to sack due to financial woes'. I might ask gpt's "deep research" just to get my moneys-worth.
The trouble with assisted dying is that medicine is now advancing so rapidly - and will likely accelerate - that it is possible diseases like dementia will be cured entirely in the next few years. Not just slowed. Or even halted. Cured
Shuffling nonna off to the reaper is fine and dandy if she’s miserable and doomed. But what if she could be healed again within a year?
While I hope you are correct, nothing we've done in medicine has made the slightest difference to dementia.
There's a lot of reason to be very hopeful about cancer, where I think immunotherapy is completely changing the game. But pretty much drug on the dementia side -particularly the plaque removing ones that everyone was so excited about- has been a complete bust.
Once the brain stops working, there's little evidence of anything coming along to stop the decline, let alone reverse it.
If I was allowed to speak on these things, I would. But I am not
"The University of Greater Manchester has suspended its vice chancellor following "serious allegations".
Professor George Holmes, who has led the university for 20 years, has been suspended alongside two senior members of academic staff at the institution, formerly known as the University of Bolton.
It comes after the university commissioned an independent investigation into recent allegations made about the institution in Bolton."
He's only paid ballpark £300k, so it wouldn't be beyond sympathy if something had to be done to top that up. Thoughts and prayers.
Wasn't the University of Bolton V.C. the highest paid of them all at one point?
Try to go for something where you can master the job, and where you cannot be superseded by machinery.
Careers advice from 1931, almost a century before AI broke out of the computer centre.
OGH said to me: "never do a job where they can measure your output".
True to an extent, but if you are really good at that job then being in the job where they measure your output is amazing. Being a stockbroker or Private Banker is clearly rubbish if you just tick boxes bit of you have a massive output it’s well worth it.
There are a lot of interesting old politics shows on youtube. I watched quite a few during indyref and the brexit vote. I seem to remember enjoying one which had Enoch Powell and Winnie Ewing on. Remarkable how much time people were given to express themselves and their ideas rather than just 'Sound! Bite! Now!'.
Yes, the Firing Line interviews, generally from the late 60s and 1970s, are fascinating.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
No point arguing with him he still believes housing has been growing faster than population
Oh I've got some even better stats up my sleeve on that front.
Post away because its obvious you are wrong and we will happily pick holes in the argument that since 2000 we built more homes than we imported people
Well, that's different to growing faster. Which is it?
Evidence that there are more homes per capita than there were back in 2000
Number of homes per person in 2000 = 0.43 Number of homes per person in 2023 = 0.44
But at the wealthier end there has been an explosion in second home, BTL and holiday let ownership, leaving fewer homes per person available for younger folk.
Probably bigger still is under occupancy. There's little financial incentive to move to a smaller place. Mrs Foxy and I have 4 bedrooms between us , and have overnight guests a few times a year.
I have never understood why the government doesn't provide much more incentives for nudging people as they get older into two things a) not going directly from working full time to permanently retired, rather making the process a gradual one and b) downsizing to smaller houses / more suitable ones for being older e.g. bungalows.
When we had all the reforms to pension age, they could have also used it as an opportunity to deploy these nudges so that people in their 60s gradually go from full time to part time to fully retired over 10 years. In most cases this is also better for the individual as doing a day or a two a week of work is a benefit for their cognitive and physical health.
The trouble with assisted dying is that medicine is now advancing so rapidly - and will likely accelerate - that it is possible diseases like dementia will be cured entirely in the next few years. Not just slowed. Or even halted. Cured
Shuffling nonna off to the reaper is fine and dandy if she’s miserable and doomed. But what if she could be healed again within a year?
While I hope you are correct, nothing we've done in medicine has made the slightest difference to dementia.
There's a lot of reason to be very hopeful about cancer, where I think immunotherapy is completely changing the game. But pretty much drug on the dementia side -particularly the plaque removing ones that everyone was so excited about- has been a complete bust.
Once the brain stops working, there's little evidence of anything coming along to stop the decline, let alone reverse it.
Just the other day I heard that a second cousin had been in a coma for several weeks and her family and doctors were preparing to switch off the life support when one of them noticed a flicker in her eye ... And now though still in hospital she's sitting up and conversing normally with visitors. It makes me shudder to think that the eye flicker might never have been noticed.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
No point arguing with him he still believes housing has been growing faster than population
Oh I've got some even better stats up my sleeve on that front.
Post away because its obvious you are wrong and we will happily pick holes in the argument that since 2000 we built more homes than we imported people
Well, that's different to growing faster. Which is it?
Evidence that there are more homes per capita than there were back in 2000
Number of homes per person in 2000 = 0.43 Number of homes per person in 2023 = 0.44
But at the wealthier end there has been an explosion in second home, BTL and holiday let ownership, leaving fewer homes per person available for younger folk.
Probably bigger still is under occupancy. There's little financial incentive to move to a smaller place. Mrs Foxy and I have 4 bedrooms between us , and have overnight guests a few times a year.
I have never understood why the government doesn't provide much more incentives for nudging people as they get older into two things a) not going directly from working full time to permanently retired, rather making the process a gradual one and b) downsizing to smaller houses / more suitable ones for being older e.g. bungalows.
When we had all the reforms to pension age, they could have also used it as an opportunity to deploy these nudges so that people in their 60s gradually go from full time to part time to retired over 10 years.
That's the way the NHS pension now works. It's possible to take "partial retirement" go part time and collect some pension. I did last year and it really suits. I will gradually shed commitments over the next years until finally fully retired.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
No point arguing with him he still believes housing has been growing faster than population
Oh I've got some even better stats up my sleeve on that front.
Post away because its obvious you are wrong and we will happily pick holes in the argument that since 2000 we built more homes than we imported people
Well, that's different to growing faster. Which is it?
Evidence that there are more homes per capita than there were back in 2000
Number of homes per person in 2000 = 0.43 Number of homes per person in 2023 = 0.44
But at the wealthier end there has been an explosion in second home, BTL and holiday let ownership, leaving fewer homes per person available for younger folk.
Probably bigger still is under occupancy. There's little financial incentive to move to a smaller place. Mrs Foxy and I have 4 bedrooms between us , and have overnight guests a few times a year.
I have never understood why the government doesn't provide much more incentives for nudging people as they get older into two things a) not going directly from working full time to permanently retired, rather making the process a gradual one and b) downsizing to smaller houses / more suitable ones for being older e.g. bungalows.
When we had all the reforms to pension age, they could have also used it as an opportunity to deploy these nudges so that people in their 60s gradually go from full time to part time to fully retired over 10 years. In most cases this is also better for the individual as doing a day or a two a week of work is a benefit for their cognitive and physical health.
In the Enoch Powell interview I linked to he forecasts the madness of wealthy pensioners getting equal state benefits, and calls for the state pension to be means tested (I think)
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
We haven't, sorry. An 85 year old in 1841 had a life expectancy of 4 years. We've bumped that up to 6 in 190 years.
That seems like a reasonably significant increase, given that the chances of dying soon at that age, particularly for men, are relatively high. On top of which more people are making that age in the first place.
I guess so, but it hardly explains the increase in problems with dementia. The change in the last 30 years or so is tiny.
In 1950 the percentage of people who reached 80 was 0.6% now its over 5%.....therefore the increase in dementia and has substantially increased in percentage since 1990
(It must be a lot higher than 5%?)
The distinction here is our ability to keep 80 year olds going is not the primary factor why dementia caseload has increased so much. It's our ability to get so many more people to 80.
I think the other thing to bear in mind is not to get lost in the percentage changes. So, there has been a massive percentage increase in the number of people aged 95. But it's not that many people, compared with say the number of 65 year old men getting treatment for heart disease.
Wow no correlation between keeping people alive longer and an increase of a disease that comes with age.....shakes head
The increase is due to the increase in numbers of elderly, what @Eabhal is saying is that the risk to any individual elderly person is dropping.
Statins, BP control etc all help with vascular aging, so probably down to that, as well as falling alcohol consumption.
Nothing wrong with being old if you are fit. My folks are 90 and 88 this year, and require no paid help. We are off to a family birthday of my mother's older sister this weekend. She needs no outside help either, apart from her daughter taking her to the supermarket once a week.
And the preventative medicine for alzheimers is what? As far as I know there is none
The new weight loss drugs, according to reports in the past few days, protect against dementia. It looks like they might even get youngsters off their smartphones.
I would think the evidence of that is scant....how would you know till those people get into the late 70's or early 80's
They have been used for ages already for diabetes.
Ozempic the best know one was only approved in 2017 and the phase 2 trial was in 2008 so I don't think they have sufficient data for that claim frankly assuming they tested on the normal age ranges the number of patients on the phase 2 trial that are now 80 would be small
I can think of two ways it make reduce the risk of dementia.
Firstly, type 2 diabetes is a known risk factor for dementia, so it's possible that treating the diabetes helps prevent dementia.
Secondly, it could be inflammation related: semiglutide is a fairly powerful antinflamatory, and chronic low-grade inflammation is commonly assocated with neurodegenerative diseases. HOWEVER, if imflammation is the pathway, then it's quite likely that steroids and NSAIDs would also lower dementia risk.
The Crown Prosecution Service yesterday effectively ruled out the prosecution of relatives who assist the terminally ill to commit suicide after announcing it would take no action against the family of rugby player Daniel James, despite having sufficient evidence to do so.
In his first decision as director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC stated he would not prosecute the parents and a family friend of the 23-year-old, who was paralysed in a training ground accident, for assisting his death.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
We haven't, sorry. An 85 year old in 1841 had a life expectancy of 4 years. We've bumped that up to 6 in 190 years.
That seems like a reasonably significant increase, given that the chances of dying soon at that age, particularly for men, are relatively high. On top of which more people are making that age in the first place.
I guess so, but it hardly explains the increase in problems with dementia. The change in the last 30 years or so is tiny.
In 1950 the percentage of people who reached 80 was 0.6% now its over 5%.....therefore the increase in dementia and has substantially increased in percentage since 1990
(It must be a lot higher than 5%?)
The distinction here is our ability to keep 80 year olds going is not the primary factor why dementia caseload has increased so much. It's our ability to get so many more people to 80.
I think the other thing to bear in mind is not to get lost in the percentage changes. So, there has been a massive percentage increase in the number of people aged 95. But it's not that many people, compared with say the number of 65 year old men getting treatment for heart disease.
Wow no correlation between keeping people alive longer and an increase of a disease that comes with age.....shakes head
The increase is due to the increase in numbers of elderly, what @Eabhal is saying is that the risk to any individual elderly person is dropping.
Statins, BP control etc all help with vascular aging, so probably down to that, as well as falling alcohol consumption.
Nothing wrong with being old if you are fit. My folks are 90 and 88 this year, and require no paid help. We are off to a family birthday of my mother's older sister this weekend. She needs no outside help either, apart from her daughter taking her to the supermarket once a week.
And the preventative medicine for alzheimers is what? As far as I know there is none
The new weight loss drugs, according to reports in the past few days, protect against dementia. It looks like they might even get youngsters off their smartphones.
I would think the evidence of that is scant....how would you know till those people get into the late 70's or early 80's
They have been used for ages already for diabetes.
Ozempic the best know one was only approved in 2017 and the phase 2 trial was in 2008 so I don't think they have sufficient data for that claim frankly assuming they tested on the normal age ranges the number of patients on the phase 2 trial that are now 80 would be small
I can think of two ways it make reduce the risk of dementia.
Firstly, type 2 diabetes is a known risk factor for dementia, so it's possible that treating the diabetes helps prevent dementia.
Secondly, it could be inflammation related: semiglutide is a fairly powerful antinflamatory, and chronic low-grade inflammation is commonly assocated with neurodegenerative diseases. HOWEVER, if imflammation is the pathway, then it's quite likely that steroids and NSAIDs would also lower dementia risk.
I just thought of a third pathway: ozempic and co reduce cravings for alcohol, and alcohol significantly increases the risk of dementia (see @Leon), so it may be that by reducing drinking you reduce the likelihood of becoming demented.
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.of
The trouble with assisted dying is that medicine is now advancing so rapidly - and will likely accelerate - that it is possible diseases like dementia will be cured entirely in the next few years. Not just slowed. Or even halted. Cured
Shuffling nonna off to the reaper is fine and dandy if she’s miserable and doomed. But what if she could be healed again within a year?
While I hope you are correct, nothing we've done in medicine has made the slightest difference to dementia.
There's a lot of reason to be very hopeful about cancer, where I think immunotherapy is completely changing the game. But pretty much drug on the dementia side -particularly the plaque removing ones that everyone was so excited about- has been a complete bust.
Once the brain stops working, there's little evidence of anything coming along to stop the decline, let alone reverse it.
My MIL died in January with vascular dementia. It was a kindness and the hospital really didn't try hard at all to revive her, despite her hanging on for a week with no food or water. Her future was bleak. I hope, if I get to that age and situation, that I will be as lucky.
The trouble with assisted dying is that medicine is now advancing so rapidly - and will likely accelerate - that it is possible diseases like dementia will be cured entirely in the next few years. Not just slowed. Or even halted. Cured
Shuffling nonna off to the reaper is fine and dandy if she’s miserable and doomed. But what if she could be healed again within a year?
While I hope you are correct, nothing we've done in medicine has made the slightest difference to dementia.
There's a lot of reason to be very hopeful about cancer, where I think immunotherapy is completely changing the game. But pretty much drug on the dementia side -particularly the plaque removing ones that everyone was so excited about- has been a complete bust.
Once the brain stops working, there's little evidence of anything coming along to stop the decline, let alone reverse it.
Just the other day I heard that a second cousin had been in a coma for several weeks and her family and doctors were preparing to switch off the life support when one of them noticed a flicker in her eye ... And now though still in hospital she's sitting up and conversing normally with visitors. It makes me shudder to think that the eye flicker might never have been noticed.
Sadly, on the other hand, there are people kept alive for years just because someone saw a flicker...
Comments
70 to 56 though not a very decisive margin and well done John Swinney for being in those who voted against
Brooke Rollins called on the Prime Minister to “put farmers first” and recognise they were “the backbone of your country”.
She said Labour’s decision to impose inheritance tax on family farms would lead to farm closures and outsourcing to America'
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/05/13/trump-agriculture-secretary-attacks-starmer-iht-plans/
Though probably the apparent benefit was survival bias. Not many active smokers live long enough to get dementia.
Based Keir Starmer, who would have guessed?
https://x.com/afucksake69/status/1922339961522602306?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Statins, BP control etc all help with vascular aging, so probably down to that, as well as falling alcohol consumption.
Nothing wrong with being old if you are fit. My folks are 90 and 88 this year, and require no paid help. We are off to a family birthday of my mother's older sister this weekend. She needs no outside help either, apart from her daughter taking her to the supermarket once a week.
It's best done at the same time as writing a will, when still in sound mind.
So he has done one thing practical
Some absolutely in denial, 100%, even after the point the family felt they had no choice but to put their relative in a home they sadly still wanted to go home and were in complete denial that anything was wrong.
Some others knew what was happening to them, and were mortified by it.
I'm not sure certain which is worse. As Terry Pratchett put it "I felt like I had two diseases: One was Alzheimer's, and the other was knowing I had Alzheimer's."
Can’t help feeling that if I rocked up at a demo in London and started singing “Bring me my machine gun”, in connection with pretty much any social group, might be accused of being a bit racialist*.
*for some reason the word “racialist* conjures the image of a thin man in a pin stripe suit, bowler hat and a very, very tightly rolled umbrella. Why is this.
They won’t put a will in place either.
At least my in laws have and they are both still in sound mind.
Like many of the things they did, the Victorian laws and rules were a reaction to what had happened previously.
The reason that gentleman’s clubs banned women and gambling was the result of the behaviour in those same clubs (quite often) a few decades before.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/alzheimers-disease/treatment/#:~:text=Donepezil, galantamine and rivastigmine can,severe, stages of the disease.
https://x.com/markogden_/status/1922337875040797170?s=61
bribegift...Experts say this is likely to take years, which means the plane may not be ready for use until near the end of Trump's term. Trump has said the plane will go directly to his presidential library after he leaves office, and that he "wouldn't be using it" after his presidency.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2eylpdg9po
I remember seeing figures along the lines that delaying the need for institutional care in dementia by a couple of years reduces the need for it by half. I don't have the reference to hand, but something along those lines.
IneosIdiotos ownership really trying to out do Glazers as most hated owners?https://xcancel.com/crowningred/status/1919894802792952191#m
“If it bleeds, we can kill it”
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2jvv20xv4o
"The University of Greater Manchester has suspended its vice chancellor following "serious allegations".
Professor George Holmes, who has led the university for 20 years, has been suspended alongside two senior members of academic staff at the institution, formerly known as the University of Bolton.
It comes after the university commissioned an independent investigation into recent allegations made about the institution in Bolton."
He's only paid ballpark £300k, so it wouldn't be beyond sympathy if something had to be done to top that up. Thoughts and prayers.
Objections to immigration are generally about cultural change, as well as pressures on housing etc, so are mainly about the immigrants that are already here, often for several generations.
Enoch Powells infamous speech was 1968 when we had net emigration, and Mrs Thatchers remarks that Britain was being swamped also was in a year with net emigration. The National Front marches were in those years too. Indeed as recently as 1992 we had net emigration, yet race relations have always been an issue.
A little known fact is that the phrase "It's just not cricket" was originally sarcastic.
Cricket being a byword for drinking, fighting, gambling, prostitution, match fixing, violence and a host of other things that the kind of people who would rather not spend their day of rest at Church or in Bible study might find entertaining.
I honestly had other things in my life and my “own problems” where I felt he would be there forever.
I would do anything to re-do his last couple of years so make sure that if you feel you need to talk, spend time, understand things, do it now and not have the brutal regret I live with daily.
The BBC can reveal that a newly-elected Leicestershire County Councillor was sacked from the police last year.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cre9z20x0r3o.amp
Shuffling nonna off to the reaper is fine and dandy if she’s miserable and doomed. But what if she could be healed again within a year?
Some people wouldn't switch off life support as they live in hope of a miracle/cure, others would.
This is just the same. If people want to hope and take their chances, that's their choice. If people want to call it quits, that's their choice.
If a speech, some not-that-drastic extra measures and some better competence than Boris gets numbers back to something enough voters can live with, then hey ho.
Do tell
There's a lot of reason to be very hopeful about cancer, where I think immunotherapy is completely changing the game. But pretty much drug on the dementia side -particularly the plaque removing ones that everyone was so excited about- has been a complete bust.
Once the brain stops working, there's little evidence of anything coming along to stop the decline, let alone reverse it.
Certainly been some walking dead in London too lately.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/live/cpdzd1v2d8gt
Careers advice from 1931, almost a century before AI broke out of the computer centre.
When we had all the reforms to pension age, they could have also used it as an opportunity to deploy these nudges so that people in their 60s gradually go from full time to part time to fully retired over 10 years. In most cases this is also better for the individual as doing a day or a two a week of work is a benefit for their cognitive and physical health.
It's a model that would work well for others.
Firstly, type 2 diabetes is a known risk factor for dementia, so it's possible that treating the diabetes helps prevent dementia.
Secondly, it could be inflammation related: semiglutide is a fairly powerful antinflamatory, and chronic low-grade inflammation is commonly assocated with neurodegenerative diseases. HOWEVER, if imflammation is the pathway, then it's quite likely that steroids and NSAIDs would also lower dementia risk.
The Crown Prosecution Service yesterday effectively ruled out the prosecution of relatives who assist the terminally ill to commit suicide after announcing it would take no action against the family of rugby player Daniel James, despite having sufficient evidence to do so.
In his first decision as director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC stated he would not prosecute the parents and a family friend of the 23-year-old, who was paralysed in a training ground accident, for assisting his death.
It is that simple. Kill off the demented
And maybe they are right, in fact, they probably ARE right
I'm interpreting this as you saying white South Africans have a lower IQ than their compatriots. Or am I wrong?