Pb brains trust: Anyone have any experience of chiropractors? I've had a bad back for about three weeks now. Friend of a friend has recommended I seek out a McTimoney chiropractor but this could be quackery for all I know.
I'm afraid I can't be clear - I have heard of both good and bad experiences, and results. Damage can be done.
I think it will depend on the particular condition, and maybe on the particular practitioner.
My only strong recommendation would be to discuss with a GP or perhaps a Physio first with respect to the particular condition, and take their advice very seriously. Many people have access to a GP by Phone service, which may be one place to look for advice.
I would weigh "friend of a friend" advice very lightly.
Thanks all - I have a physio I trust so I think that should be my first port of call.
Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative
Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.
Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!
In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.
Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.
Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.
Demographics are changing either way.
The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.
I know we disagree on this but the vast majority of the growing pressure on the NHS is not age related. It's growing at 3% in real terms per annum - that's simply far too fast to be explained by a bump in the demographic profile.
That's why I have the pessimistic view that a universal healthcare service is doomed to fail unless there is a punchy public health campaign to bring the general standard of health up significantly, or else start to restrict spending on treatments for preventable diseases or for those who are not looking after themselves.
Anyway, I'm off for 25k slow run. I've nearly lost my big toenail so that will probably offset the health gains...
Our age profile is growing too. Demand is overwhelmingly and exponentially set by age.
I'm 42 and I've set myself the goal of looking after myself since I turned 40, I've lost over 60 pounds by switching to my carnivore diet . . . But being in my 40s that has changed my interactions with the NHS from zero to zero.
Does the carnivore diet really work?
In one sense it’s just another fad that works by restricting calorie intake: The high fat intake probably helps with satiation, which is the main problem most dieters face - hunger is difficult to cope with. It’s also an expensive way to get your calories.
On the flip side, if it works for you then it works. Just make sure to supplement your diet with enough veggies to supply the essential bits and pieces you won’t get from meat alone - quite a few of the nuttier end of the US right wing “eating meat makes me more manly” brigade made themselves quite seriously ill due to things like vitamin C deficiency.
Expensive is relative.
Is meat expensive versus some other stuff? Yes, absolutely. On the other hand other choices aren't always cheaper.
Eg a pack of black pudding from Aldi is 99p. That will do my breakfast for a couple of days, or on the rare times I'm hungry after dinner I'll quickly cook a slice (25p). Most packets of crisps or sweets cost way more than 25p.
A kg of chicken thighs costs £6.50 at Aldi. That can do my lunch and evening meals for two days.
So £7.50 say for 3 meals a day, for 2 days. Just over a pound a meal.
A single McDonald's meal can cost £8.
A bag of Doritos as a snack, not a meal, can cost £2.50
Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative
Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.
Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!
In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.
Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.
Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.
Demographics are changing either way.
The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.
5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.
Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.
The over 65 population has grown by about 32%, 2000-2019.
Meanwhile the health budget has increased by 105%, in real terms. We're in big trouble.
Considering older people are more than 10x more likely to use health services than younger people that budget change is entirely explained by demographics.
Let's say 100% of the health budget goes on over 65-year olds, and that population has increased by 32%.
If it's entirely down to demographics, how much should the budget have increased by?
Its not the case that 100% goes to them so that doesn't work.
Instead the over 65s demand dramatically more than under 65s and that grows exponentially. Over 75s demand dramatically more than 65 year olds, over 85s demand dramatically more than 75 year olds etc
Exponential growth tends to affect the NHS.
The number of people aged over 90 has increased by about 40% over that period - a very significant increase and no doubt a driver of costs.
But it's still nowhere near the 105% growth overall, and over 90s still represent only 1% of the population. The evidence is chronic conditions have increased significantly - we have lots of people spending decades getting care for diseases. We are also better than ever at treating them.
The ugly truth is our level health spending is a political choice, and no government (particularly this Labour government) is going to do anything other than chuck loads of cash at it.
Chronic conditions are tied to age.
Plus the reason why the over x population has increased is because we have become better at turning fatal conditions into chronic ones.
Turning a fatal condition into a chronic condition doesn't cure the condition, it just means that the person doesn't die but lives longer with that and other conditions. That may be a good thing for the individual, but its expensive.
Chronic conditions go away when people die. Prevent death, you have more chronic conditions to treat.
Illustrative example - let's imagine 100% of health spending goes on over 65s, and let's say that 40% of the over 65 population has a chronic condition.
We know that the over 65 population has increased by 32%. So the total number of people living with chronic conditions should have increased by 32% too, and the costs associated with them increased by 32%.
But no. Total health spending has increased by more than 3x that much. It is not entirely explained by an aging population. It's either because the age-specific rate of chronic conditions has increased (i.e. the population has become less healthy), or the cost of treatment has grown.
Might it also be the number of different treatments available, as well as the demand for treatments and the cost of those treatments? If you get a new way to treat a certain condition, and it gets passed by NICE, then there's a pretty immediate cost increase.
Yep, and this is why you get a vicious cycle - we find new ways of keeping old people alive, which contributes to both the demographic pressure AND increases the age-specific rates of chronic conditions.* Technological innovation and productivity growth in the NHS actually drives costs.
The point I'm trying to drive home is that this is a solvable problem, at least from a fiscal perspective. I'm frustrated by people just pointing at demographics as if that explains everything and we can't do anything about it.
*It's still the case that the last 12 months are the most expensive of our lives, regardless of what age they come. That's a flat cost that we can't do much about, though you only die once.
Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative
Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.
Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!
In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.
Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.
Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.
Demographics are changing either way.
The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.
I know we disagree on this but the vast majority of the growing pressure on the NHS is not age related. It's growing at 3% in real terms per annum - that's simply far too fast to be explained by a bump in the demographic profile.
That's why I have the pessimistic view that a universal healthcare service is doomed to fail unless there is a punchy public health campaign to bring the general standard of health up significantly, or else start to restrict spending on treatments for preventable diseases or for those who are not looking after themselves.
Anyway, I'm off for 25k slow run. I've nearly lost my big toenail so that will probably offset the health gains...
Our age profile is growing too. Demand is overwhelmingly and exponentially set by age.
I'm 42 and I've set myself the goal of looking after myself since I turned 40, I've lost over 60 pounds by switching to my carnivore diet . . . But being in my 40s that has changed my interactions with the NHS from zero to zero.
There is good evidence that keeping fit and healthy from 40 onwards (at least) sets the tone for your old age.
And that being fit helps reduce the recovery time from serious illnesses and operations.
I’ve got a range of oldies in the family. The difference between those who did a bit of exercise constantly and kept active and the “we’ve retired, so not doing much is expected” ones is quite startling.
Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative
Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.
Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!
In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.
Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.
Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.
Demographics are changing either way.
The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.
5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.
Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.
The over 65 population has grown by about 32%, 2000-2019.
Meanwhile the health budget has increased by 105%, in real terms. We're in big trouble.
Considering older people are more than 10x more likely to use health services than younger people that budget change is entirely explained by demographics.
Let's say 100% of the health budget goes on over 65-year olds, and that population has increased by 32%.
If it's entirely down to demographics, how much should the budget have increased by?
Its not the case that 100% goes to them so that doesn't work.
Instead the over 65s demand dramatically more than under 65s and that grows exponentially. Over 75s demand dramatically more than 65 year olds, over 85s demand dramatically more than 75 year olds etc
Exponential growth tends to affect the NHS.
The number of people aged over 90 has increased by about 40% over that period - a very significant increase and no doubt a driver of costs.
But it's still nowhere near the 105% growth overall, and over 90s still represent only 1% of the population. The evidence is chronic conditions have increased significantly - we have lots of people spending decades getting care for diseases. We are also better than ever at treating them.
The ugly truth is our level health spending is a political choice, and no government (particularly this Labour government) is going to do anything other than chuck loads of cash at it.
Chronic conditions are tied to age.
Plus the reason why the over x population has increased is because we have become better at turning fatal conditions into chronic ones.
Turning a fatal condition into a chronic condition doesn't cure the condition, it just means that the person doesn't die but lives longer with that and other conditions. That may be a good thing for the individual, but its expensive.
Chronic conditions go away when people die. Prevent death, you have more chronic conditions to treat.
Illustrative example - let's imagine 100% of health spending goes on over 65s, and let's say that 40% of the over 65 population has a chronic condition.
We know that the over 65 population has increased by 32%. So the total number of people living with chronic conditions should have increased by 32% too, and the costs associated with them increased by 32%.
But no. Total health spending has increased by more than 3x that much. It is not entirely explained by an aging population. It's either because the age-specific rate of chronic conditions has increased (i.e. the population has become less healthy), or the cost of treatment has grown.
Might it also be the number of different treatments available, as well as the demand for treatments and the cost of those treatments? If you get a new way to treat a certain condition, and it gets passed by NICE, then there's a pretty immediate cost increase.
Yep, and this is why you get a vicious cycle - we find new ways of keeping old people alive, which contributes to both the demographic pressure AND increases the age-specific rates of chronic conditions.* Technological innovation and productivity growth in the NHS actually drives costs.
The point I'm trying to drive home is that this is a solvable problem, at least from a fiscal perspective. I'm frustrated by people just pointing at demographics as if that explains everything and we can't do anything about it.
*It's still the case that the last 12 months are the most expensive of our lives, regardless of what age they come. That's a flat cost that we can't do much about, though you only die once.
How do you propose we solve it? Deny people treatments that turn fatal conditions into chronic ones?
I mean, I advocate for assisted dying which would help but I advocate for it to alleviate suffering not save cash.
Pb brains trust: Anyone have any experience of chiropractors? I've had a bad back for about three weeks now. Friend of a friend has recommended I seek out a McTimoney chiropractor but this could be quackery for all I know.
I'm afraid I can't be clear - I have heard of both good and bad experiences, and results. Damage can be done.
I think it will depend on the particular condition, and maybe on the particular practitioner.
My only strong recommendation would be to discuss with a GP or perhaps a Physio first with respect to the particular condition, and take their advice very seriously. Many people have access to a GP by Phone service, which may be one place to look for advice.
I would weigh "friend of a friend" advice very lightly.
Some parts of the country (postcode lottery) have NHS self-referral physiotherapist services: you just ring up and get an appointment… which is usually a telephone triage at first, but may then lead on to actually seeing one. They may also offer an app with exercises and advice.
Are you employed? Occupational health services, depending on what you have access to, can also be very helpful.
Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative
Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.
Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!
In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.
Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.
Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.
Demographics are changing either way.
The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.
I know we disagree on this but the vast majority of the growing pressure on the NHS is not age related. It's growing at 3% in real terms per annum - that's simply far too fast to be explained by a bump in the demographic profile.
That's why I have the pessimistic view that a universal healthcare service is doomed to fail unless there is a punchy public health campaign to bring the general standard of health up significantly, or else start to restrict spending on treatments for preventable diseases or for those who are not looking after themselves.
Anyway, I'm off for 25k slow run. I've nearly lost my big toenail so that will probably offset the health gains...
I had my big toenails deliberately removed 10 years ago, as an anti-ingrowing toenail Type I health measure. They used hydrochloric acid to kill the nails iirc. The nurse was overenthusiastic applying the local and the needle initially came out the other side of the toe.
When I was doing my walk at Hardwick Hall yesterday on a 6km circuit - nice because of grass and modest hills, there was a organised run where people get 6 hours to do as much as possible or stop when desired, and most I questioned were either on their 6th or 7th circuit at the ~4-5 hour point.
They were mainly doing marathon practice ("100 Marathons Club" teeshirt), or recovering from health conditions. The people you meet.
Ouch. And I thought the Online Safety Act would protect me from reading such horror stories online…
There's no horror story - it was fun. The needle coming out was a minor "ooops".
Very nicely done, and all done by the nurse at the local GP surgery in a few minutes. It wasn't really any worse than having say a Veruka frozen off. Ingrowing toenails before they are removed are horrible by comparison.
My worst pain wise has been bone marrow biopsies - would you like me to explain? They are done wtith things like a sharp, hollow knitting needle inserted into your hip to extract a core as you do from an ice-cap, but about the size of a large match stick.
Pb brains trust: Anyone have any experience of chiropractors? I've had a bad back for about three weeks now. Friend of a friend has recommended I seek out a McTimoney chiropractor but this could be quackery for all I know.
Have you tried physio?
The one time I needed to see a GP in the past decade (besides checkups) was because of a muscle tear in my back. Putting my daughter in the seat in the trolley, I went one way, she tried to go the other and my muscle tore with an audible snap.
GP referred to as physio (at the same GP surgery) and six weeks later I felt much better. Still feel it sometimes but its not bothering much anymore.
Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative
Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.
Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!
In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.
Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.
Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.
Demographics are changing either way.
The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.
5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.
Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.
The over 65 population has grown by about 32%, 2000-2019.
Meanwhile the health budget has increased by 105%, in real terms. We're in big trouble.
Considering older people are more than 10x more likely to use health services than younger people that budget change is entirely explained by demographics.
Let's say 100% of the health budget goes on over 65-year olds, and that population has increased by 32%.
If it's entirely down to demographics, how much should the budget have increased by?
Its not the case that 100% goes to them so that doesn't work.
Instead the over 65s demand dramatically more than under 65s and that grows exponentially. Over 75s demand dramatically more than 65 year olds, over 85s demand dramatically more than 75 year olds etc
Exponential growth tends to affect the NHS.
The number of people aged over 90 has increased by about 40% over that period - a very significant increase and no doubt a driver of costs.
But it's still nowhere near the 105% growth overall, and over 90s still represent only 1% of the population. The evidence is chronic conditions have increased significantly - we have lots of people spending decades getting care for diseases. We are also better than ever at treating them.
The ugly truth is our level health spending is a political choice, and no government (particularly this Labour government) is going to do anything other than chuck loads of cash at it.
Chronic conditions are tied to age.
Plus the reason why the over x population has increased is because we have become better at turning fatal conditions into chronic ones.
Turning a fatal condition into a chronic condition doesn't cure the condition, it just means that the person doesn't die but lives longer with that and other conditions. That may be a good thing for the individual, but its expensive.
Chronic conditions go away when people die. Prevent death, you have more chronic conditions to treat.
Illustrative example - let's imagine 100% of health spending goes on over 65s, and let's say that 40% of the over 65 population has a chronic condition.
We know that the over 65 population has increased by 32%. So the total number of people living with chronic conditions should have increased by 32% too, and the costs associated with them increased by 32%.
But no. Total health spending has increased by more than 3x that much. It is not entirely explained by an aging population. It's either because the age-specific rate of chronic conditions has increased (i.e. the population has become less healthy), or the cost of treatment has grown.
Might it also be the number of different treatments available, as well as the demand for treatments and the cost of those treatments? If you get a new way to treat a certain condition, and it gets passed by NICE, then there's a pretty immediate cost increase.
Yep, and this is why you get a vicious cycle - we find new ways of keeping old people alive, which contributes to both the demographic pressure AND increases the age-specific rates of chronic conditions.* Technological innovation and productivity growth in the NHS actually drives costs.
The point I'm trying to drive home is that this is a solvable problem, at least from a fiscal perspective. I'm frustrated by people just pointing at demographics as if that explains everything and we can't do anything about it.
*It's still the case that the last 12 months are the most expensive of our lives, regardless of what age they come. That's a flat cost that we can't do much about, though you only die once.
How do you propose we solve it? Deny people treatments that turn fatal conditions into chronic ones?
I mean, I advocate for assisted dying which would help but I advocate for it to alleviate suffering not save cash.
We could change the calculations used by NICE to re-focus expenditure on certain conditions over others. The NHS currently spends a bit more on cancer than other conditions, but could we reverse that to spend more on, say, dementia? (And charitable donations are very skewed towards certain conditions over others.)
Public health is an area that is particularly poorly funded, but where benefits can be huge. Moving public health to local authorities, who have been ravaged by austerity, has been a huge problem.
None of these things are panaceas, but they could make some difference.
Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative
Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.
Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!
In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.
Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.
Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.
Demographics are changing either way.
The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.
I know we disagree on this but the vast majority of the growing pressure on the NHS is not age related. It's growing at 3% in real terms per annum - that's simply far too fast to be explained by a bump in the demographic profile.
That's why I have the pessimistic view that a universal healthcare service is doomed to fail unless there is a punchy public health campaign to bring the general standard of health up significantly, or else start to restrict spending on treatments for preventable diseases or for those who are not looking after themselves.
Anyway, I'm off for 25k slow run. I've nearly lost my big toenail so that will probably offset the health gains...
Our age profile is growing too. Demand is overwhelmingly and exponentially set by age.
I'm 42 and I've set myself the goal of looking after myself since I turned 40, I've lost over 60 pounds by switching to my carnivore diet . . . But being in my 40s that has changed my interactions with the NHS from zero to zero.
There is good evidence that keeping fit and healthy from 40 onwards (at least) sets the tone for your old age.
And that being fit helps reduce the recovery time from serious illnesses and operations.
I’ve got a range of oldies in the family. The difference between those who did a bit of exercise constantly and kept active and the “we’ve retired, so not doing much is expected” ones is quite startling.
Oh, absolutely.
But there's kind of a paradox that those who aren't active tend to die younger, and the bills stop when they die.
Those who are active tend to live longer, accumulating more chronic conditions as they age.
Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative
Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.
Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!
In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.
Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.
Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.
Demographics are changing either way.
The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.
5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.
Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.
The over 65 population has grown by about 32%, 2000-2019.
Meanwhile the health budget has increased by 105%, in real terms. We're in big trouble.
Considering older people are more than 10x more likely to use health services than younger people that budget change is entirely explained by demographics.
Let's say 100% of the health budget goes on over 65-year olds, and that population has increased by 32%.
If it's entirely down to demographics, how much should the budget have increased by?
Its not the case that 100% goes to them so that doesn't work.
Instead the over 65s demand dramatically more than under 65s and that grows exponentially. Over 75s demand dramatically more than 65 year olds, over 85s demand dramatically more than 75 year olds etc
Exponential growth tends to affect the NHS.
The number of people aged over 90 has increased by about 40% over that period - a very significant increase and no doubt a driver of costs.
But it's still nowhere near the 105% growth overall, and over 90s still represent only 1% of the population. The evidence is chronic conditions have increased significantly - we have lots of people spending decades getting care for diseases. We are also better than ever at treating them.
The ugly truth is our level health spending is a political choice, and no government (particularly this Labour government) is going to do anything other than chuck loads of cash at it.
Chronic conditions are tied to age.
Plus the reason why the over x population has increased is because we have become better at turning fatal conditions into chronic ones.
Turning a fatal condition into a chronic condition doesn't cure the condition, it just means that the person doesn't die but lives longer with that and other conditions. That may be a good thing for the individual, but its expensive.
Chronic conditions go away when people die. Prevent death, you have more chronic conditions to treat.
Illustrative example - let's imagine 100% of health spending goes on over 65s, and let's say that 40% of the over 65 population has a chronic condition.
We know that the over 65 population has increased by 32%. So the total number of people living with chronic conditions should have increased by 32% too, and the costs associated with them increased by 32%.
But no. Total health spending has increased by more than 3x that much. It is not entirely explained by an aging population. It's either because the age-specific rate of chronic conditions has increased (i.e. the population has become less healthy), or the cost of treatment has grown.
Over long time periods, you also have to take into account the Baumol Effect . Basically, when you have an industry which requires a lot of labour, which it is difficult to improve productivity - like many aspects of health and care - the cost goes up faster than industries which have good productivity improvements. This is because the people employed in the low productivity industry could move to a higher productivity industry, so you can't just let their pay drop that much in comparison. This effect occurs even in the absence of people getting sicker or management fucking up.
Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative
Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.
Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!
In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.
Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.
Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.
Demographics are changing either way.
The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.
I know we disagree on this but the vast majority of the growing pressure on the NHS is not age related. It's growing at 3% in real terms per annum - that's simply far too fast to be explained by a bump in the demographic profile.
That's why I have the pessimistic view that a universal healthcare service is doomed to fail unless there is a punchy public health campaign to bring the general standard of health up significantly, or else start to restrict spending on treatments for preventable diseases or for those who are not looking after themselves.
Anyway, I'm off for 25k slow run. I've nearly lost my big toenail so that will probably offset the health gains...
I had my big toenails deliberately removed 10 years ago, as an anti-ingrowing toenail Type I health measure. They used hydrochloric acid to kill the nails iirc. The nurse was overenthusiastic applying the local and the needle initially came out the other side of the toe.
When I was doing my walk at Hardwick Hall yesterday on a 6km circuit - nice because of grass and modest hills, there was a organised run where people get 6 hours to do as much as possible or stop when desired, and most I questioned were either on their 6th or 7th circuit at the ~4-5 hour point.
They were mainly doing marathon practice ("100 Marathons Club" teeshirt), or recovering from health conditions. The people you meet.
Ouch. And I thought the Online Safety Act would protect me from reading such horror stories online…
There's no horror story - it was fun. The needle coming out was a minor "ooops".
Very nicely done, and all done by the nurse at the local GP surgery in a few minutes. It wasn't really any worse than having say a Veruka frozen off. Ingrowing toenails before they are removed are horrible by comparison.
My worst pain wise has been bone marrow biopsies - would you like me to explain? They are done wtith things like a sharp, hollow knitting needle inserted into your hip to extract a core as you do from an ice-cap, but about the size of a large match stick.
My Mum went on to be a surgeon, but wimped out of an ingrowing toenail op in her training as she felt so nauseous about it. (She went on to do eyes. She said she was happy cutting into eyes as there’s usually no blood.)
Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative
Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.
Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!
In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.
Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.
Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.
Demographics are changing either way.
The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.
I know we disagree on this but the vast majority of the growing pressure on the NHS is not age related. It's growing at 3% in real terms per annum - that's simply far too fast to be explained by a bump in the demographic profile.
That's why I have the pessimistic view that a universal healthcare service is doomed to fail unless there is a punchy public health campaign to bring the general standard of health up significantly, or else start to restrict spending on treatments for preventable diseases or for those who are not looking after themselves.
Anyway, I'm off for 25k slow run. I've nearly lost my big toenail so that will probably offset the health gains...
Our age profile is growing too. Demand is overwhelmingly and exponentially set by age.
I'm 42 and I've set myself the goal of looking after myself since I turned 40, I've lost over 60 pounds by switching to my carnivore diet . . . But being in my 40s that has changed my interactions with the NHS from zero to zero.
There is good evidence that keeping fit and healthy from 40 onwards (at least) sets the tone for your old age.
And that being fit helps reduce the recovery time from serious illnesses and operations.
I’ve got a range of oldies in the family. The difference between those who did a bit of exercise constantly and kept active and the “we’ve retired, so not doing much is expected” ones is quite startling.
Oh, absolutely.
But there's kind of a paradox that those who aren't active tend to die younger, and the bills stop when they die.
Those who are active tend to live longer, accumulating more chronic conditions as they age.
But you also have to consider the time value of money. Putting off your death by 10 years puts off the costs associated with that by 10 years.
Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative
Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.
Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!
In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.
Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.
Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.
Demographics are changing either way.
The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.
I know we disagree on this but the vast majority of the growing pressure on the NHS is not age related. It's growing at 3% in real terms per annum - that's simply far too fast to be explained by a bump in the demographic profile.
That's why I have the pessimistic view that a universal healthcare service is doomed to fail unless there is a punchy public health campaign to bring the general standard of health up significantly, or else start to restrict spending on treatments for preventable diseases or for those who are not looking after themselves.
Anyway, I'm off for 25k slow run. I've nearly lost my big toenail so that will probably offset the health gains...
Our age profile is growing too. Demand is overwhelmingly and exponentially set by age.
I'm 42 and I've set myself the goal of looking after myself since I turned 40, I've lost over 60 pounds by switching to my carnivore diet . . . But being in my 40s that has changed my interactions with the NHS from zero to zero.
There is good evidence that keeping fit and healthy from 40 onwards (at least) sets the tone for your old age.
And that being fit helps reduce the recovery time from serious illnesses and operations.
I’ve got a range of oldies in the family. The difference between those who did a bit of exercise constantly and kept active and the “we’ve retired, so not doing much is expected” ones is quite startling.
Oh, absolutely.
But there's kind of a paradox that those who aren't active tend to die younger, and the bills stop when they die.
Those who are active tend to live longer, accumulating more chronic conditions as they age.
But you also have to consider the time value of money. Putting off your death by 10 years puts off the costs associated with that by 10 years.
No, it doesn't.
Not if you then live with chronic conditions.
Ten years of life in your 80s or 90s is not the same as ten years of life in your 20s or 30s.
Last nights Iranian launch seems to have been more effective than the first night, the question is now whether Israel goes after the industry on the Gulf and Iran responds by closing Hormuz and if they attempt a truly massive launch in the very high hundreds/over 1000 missiles. Watch oil prices tomorrow/later if and when any of that goes down.
Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative
Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.
Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!
In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.
Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.
Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.
Demographics are changing either way.
The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.
5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.
Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.
The over 65 population has grown by about 32%, 2000-2019.
Meanwhile the health budget has increased by 105%, in real terms. We're in big trouble.
Considering older people are more than 10x more likely to use health services than younger people that budget change is entirely explained by demographics.
Let's say 100% of the health budget goes on over 65-year olds, and that population has increased by 32%.
If it's entirely down to demographics, how much should the budget have increased by?
Its not the case that 100% goes to them so that doesn't work.
Instead the over 65s demand dramatically more than under 65s and that grows exponentially. Over 75s demand dramatically more than 65 year olds, over 85s demand dramatically more than 75 year olds etc
Exponential growth tends to affect the NHS.
The number of people aged over 90 has increased by about 40% over that period - a very significant increase and no doubt a driver of costs.
But it's still nowhere near the 105% growth overall, and over 90s still represent only 1% of the population. The evidence is chronic conditions have increased significantly - we have lots of people spending decades getting care for diseases. We are also better than ever at treating them.
The ugly truth is our level health spending is a political choice, and no government (particularly this Labour government) is going to do anything other than chuck loads of cash at it.
Chronic conditions are tied to age.
Plus the reason why the over x population has increased is because we have become better at turning fatal conditions into chronic ones.
Turning a fatal condition into a chronic condition doesn't cure the condition, it just means that the person doesn't die but lives longer with that and other conditions. That may be a good thing for the individual, but its expensive.
Chronic conditions go away when people die. Prevent death, you have more chronic conditions to treat.
Illustrative example - let's imagine 100% of health spending goes on over 65s, and let's say that 40% of the over 65 population has a chronic condition.
We know that the over 65 population has increased by 32%. So the total number of people living with chronic conditions should have increased by 32% too, and the costs associated with them increased by 32%.
But no. Total health spending has increased by more than 3x that much. It is not entirely explained by an aging population. It's either because the age-specific rate of chronic conditions has increased (i.e. the population has become less healthy), or the cost of treatment has grown.
Over long time periods, you also have to take into account the Baumol Effect . Basically, when you have an industry which requires a lot of labour, which it is difficult to improve productivity - like many aspects of health and care - the cost goes up faster than industries which have good productivity improvements. This is because the people employed in the low productivity industry could move to a higher productivity industry, so you can't just let their pay drop that much in comparison. This effect occurs even in the absence of people getting sicker or management fucking up.
The thing I can't work out in my head is if the Baumol Effect is something that drives the growth in spending, or is something that just keeps health spending in line with the rest of the economy (e.g. just a variation on income effect).
I'm never one to want to see the price of petrol go up, but if paying more for a litre of unleaded is the price we need to pay to see the elimination of the Iranian regime then I'm prepared to pay it.
I hope the Israelis smash the Iranian nuclear, industrial and oil refineries into dust unless or until there's regime change.
Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative
Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.
Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!
In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.
Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.
Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.
Demographics are changing either way.
The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.
I know we disagree on this but the vast majority of the growing pressure on the NHS is not age related. It's growing at 3% in real terms per annum - that's simply far too fast to be explained by a bump in the demographic profile.
That's why I have the pessimistic view that a universal healthcare service is doomed to fail unless there is a punchy public health campaign to bring the general standard of health up significantly, or else start to restrict spending on treatments for preventable diseases or for those who are not looking after themselves.
Anyway, I'm off for 25k slow run. I've nearly lost my big toenail so that will probably offset the health gains...
Our age profile is growing too. Demand is overwhelmingly and exponentially set by age.
I'm 42 and I've set myself the goal of looking after myself since I turned 40, I've lost over 60 pounds by switching to my carnivore diet . . . But being in my 40s that has changed my interactions with the NHS from zero to zero.
There is good evidence that keeping fit and healthy from 40 onwards (at least) sets the tone for your old age.
And that being fit helps reduce the recovery time from serious illnesses and operations.
I’ve got a range of oldies in the family. The difference between those who did a bit of exercise constantly and kept active and the “we’ve retired, so not doing much is expected” ones is quite startling.
Oh, absolutely.
But there's kind of a paradox that those who aren't active tend to die younger, and the bills stop when they die.
Those who are active tend to live longer, accumulating more chronic conditions as they age.
This is a rather common comment you see in the Mail/Telegraph used to justify unhealthy behaviours, but I'm yet to see any evidence for it. There is some stuff about smoking but because we've got so good at treating lung diseases it's no longer the case, even after taking into account tobacco taxes.
We've had councillors arguing against cycling in Edinburgh because of the costs of collisions to the NHS - an argument the same individual did not make when it came to 20mph limits for some reason...
I'm never one to want to see the price of petrol go up, but if paying more for a litre of unleaded is the price we need to pay to see the elimination of the Iranian regime then I'm prepared to pay it.
I hope the Israelis smash the Iranian nuclear, industrial and oil refineries into dust unless or until there's regime change.
"That was a message from the IDF Information Centre, PB section."
Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative
Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.
Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!
In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.
Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.
Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.
Demographics are changing either way.
The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.
I know we disagree on this but the vast majority of the growing pressure on the NHS is not age related. It's growing at 3% in real terms per annum - that's simply far too fast to be explained by a bump in the demographic profile.
That's why I have the pessimistic view that a universal healthcare service is doomed to fail unless there is a punchy public health campaign to bring the general standard of health up significantly, or else start to restrict spending on treatments for preventable diseases or for those who are not looking after themselves.
Anyway, I'm off for 25k slow run. I've nearly lost my big toenail so that will probably offset the health gains...
Our age profile is growing too. Demand is overwhelmingly and exponentially set by age.
I'm 42 and I've set myself the goal of looking after myself since I turned 40, I've lost over 60 pounds by switching to my carnivore diet . . . But being in my 40s that has changed my interactions with the NHS from zero to zero.
There is good evidence that keeping fit and healthy from 40 onwards (at least) sets the tone for your old age.
And that being fit helps reduce the recovery time from serious illnesses and operations.
I’ve got a range of oldies in the family. The difference between those who did a bit of exercise constantly and kept active and the “we’ve retired, so not doing much is expected” ones is quite startling.
Oh, absolutely.
But there's kind of a paradox that those who aren't active tend to die younger, and the bills stop when they die.
Those who are active tend to live longer, accumulating more chronic conditions as they age.
But you also have to consider the time value of money. Putting off your death by 10 years puts off the costs associated with that by 10 years.
No, it doesn't.
Not if you then live with chronic conditions.
Ten years of life in your 80s or 90s is not the same as ten years of life in your 20s or 30s.
If.
It depends what happens in those 10 years. You might be fairly healthy in those 10 years, so the additional health costs are low and the high health costs typically associated with the last year of life are delayed, effectively saving money. Or you might have an expensive chronic condition and have much higher costs.
Generally, healthier, fitter people are putting off death *and* putting off the onset of expensive chronic conditions.
But, yeah, it’s complicated. So, how do we get people into the healthy ageing category? You get papers like this, https://www.embopress.org/doi/full/10.15252/embr.201439518 , arguing along similar lines to you and suggesting that we need to re-focus medical research on preventing or treating age-related conditions rather than on just extending lifespans.
Last nights Iranian launch seems to have been more effective than the first night, the question is now whether Israel goes after the industry on the Gulf and Iran responds by closing Hormuz and if they attempt a truly massive launch in the very high hundreds/over 1000 missiles. Watch oil prices tomorrow/later if and when any of that goes down.
Last nights Iranian launch seems to have been more effective than the first night, the question is now whether Israel goes after the industry on the Gulf and Iran responds by closing Hormuz and if they attempt a truly massive launch in the very high hundreds/over 1000 missiles. Watch oil prices tomorrow/later if and when any of that goes down.
I'm never one to want to see the price of petrol go up, but if paying more for a litre of unleaded is the price we need to pay to see the elimination of the Iranian regime then I'm prepared to pay it.
I hope the Israelis smash the Iranian nuclear, industrial and oil refineries into dust unless or until there's regime change.
I think it very unlikely that we will see (Iranian) regime change as a result.
(This could backfire on Bibi and we see the Israeli government fall.)
Last nights Iranian launch seems to have been more effective than the first night, the question is now whether Israel goes after the industry on the Gulf and Iran responds by closing Hormuz and if they attempt a truly massive launch in the very high hundreds/over 1000 missiles. Watch oil prices tomorrow/later if and when any of that goes down.
BRACE?
Nah, just watch
Comforting that the UK is clearly committed to de-escalation by sending warplanes to the area and going to a war footing. (Best read out in a nasal uninspring tone)
Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative
Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.
Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!
In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.
Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.
Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.
Demographics are changing either way.
The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.
I know we disagree on this but the vast majority of the growing pressure on the NHS is not age related. It's growing at 3% in real terms per annum - that's simply far too fast to be explained by a bump in the demographic profile.
That's why I have the pessimistic view that a universal healthcare service is doomed to fail unless there is a punchy public health campaign to bring the general standard of health up significantly, or else start to restrict spending on treatments for preventable diseases or for those who are not looking after themselves.
Anyway, I'm off for 25k slow run. I've nearly lost my big toenail so that will probably offset the health gains...
Our age profile is growing too. Demand is overwhelmingly and exponentially set by age.
I'm 42 and I've set myself the goal of looking after myself since I turned 40, I've lost over 60 pounds by switching to my carnivore diet . . . But being in my 40s that has changed my interactions with the NHS from zero to zero.
Does the carnivore diet really work?
In one sense it’s just another fad that works by restricting calorie intake: The high fat intake probably helps with satiation, which is the main problem most dieters face - hunger is difficult to cope with. It’s also an expensive way to get your calories.
On the flip side, if it works for you then it works. Just make sure to supplement your diet with enough veggies to supply the essential bits and pieces you won’t get from meat alone - quite a few of the nuttier end of the US right wing “eating meat makes me more manly” brigade made themselves quite seriously ill due to things like vitamin C deficiency.
Expensive is relative.
Is meat expensive versus some other stuff? Yes, absolutely. On the other hand other choices aren't always cheaper.
Eg a pack of black pudding from Aldi is 99p. That will do my breakfast for a couple of days, or on the rare times I'm hungry after dinner I'll quickly cook a slice (25p). Most packets of crisps or sweets cost way more than 25p.
A kg of chicken thighs costs £6.50 at Aldi. That can do my lunch and evening meals for two days.
So £7.50 say for 3 meals a day, for 2 days. Just over a pound a meal.
A single McDonald's meal can cost £8.
A bag of Doritos as a snack, not a meal, can cost £2.50
WTF thinks after dinner , I fancy a slice of black pudding because it is cheap , or thinks multiple days dinner of battery hen thighs is yummy because they are dirt cheap. Fine if you like eating crap but what a f****ing life.
Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative
Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.
Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!
In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.
Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.
Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.
Demographics are changing either way.
The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.
I know we disagree on this but the vast majority of the growing pressure on the NHS is not age related. It's growing at 3% in real terms per annum - that's simply far too fast to be explained by a bump in the demographic profile.
That's why I have the pessimistic view that a universal healthcare service is doomed to fail unless there is a punchy public health campaign to bring the general standard of health up significantly, or else start to restrict spending on treatments for preventable diseases or for those who are not looking after themselves.
Anyway, I'm off for 25k slow run. I've nearly lost my big toenail so that will probably offset the health gains...
Our age profile is growing too. Demand is overwhelmingly and exponentially set by age.
I'm 42 and I've set myself the goal of looking after myself since I turned 40, I've lost over 60 pounds by switching to my carnivore diet . . . But being in my 40s that has changed my interactions with the NHS from zero to zero.
There is good evidence that keeping fit and healthy from 40 onwards (at least) sets the tone for your old age.
And that being fit helps reduce the recovery time from serious illnesses and operations.
I’ve got a range of oldies in the family. The difference between those who did a bit of exercise constantly and kept active and the “we’ve retired, so not doing much is expected” ones is quite startling.
Oh, absolutely.
But there's kind of a paradox that those who aren't active tend to die younger, and the bills stop when they die.
Those who are active tend to live longer, accumulating more chronic conditions as they age.
But you also have to consider the time value of money. Putting off your death by 10 years puts off the costs associated with that by 10 years.
No, it doesn't.
Not if you then live with chronic conditions.
Ten years of life in your 80s or 90s is not the same as ten years of life in your 20s or 30s.
If.
It depends what happens in those 10 years. You might be fairly healthy in those 10 years, so the additional health costs are low and the high health costs typically associated with the last year of life are delayed, effectively saving money. Or you might have an expensive chronic condition and have much higher costs.
Generally, healthier, fitter people are putting off death *and* putting off the onset of expensive chronic conditions.
But, yeah, it’s complicated. So, how do we get people into the healthy ageing category? You get papers like this, https://www.embopress.org/doi/full/10.15252/embr.201439518 , arguing along similar lines to you and suggesting that we need to re-focus medical research on preventing or treating age-related conditions rather than on just extending lifespans.
It isn't an if for those who had formerly fatal conditions that are turned into chronic conditions.
That leaves the NHS with a decade of extra chronic conditions to handle, it doesn't solve them.
Eliminating chronic conditions would solve a lot of problems, but currently the only way to eliminate many is death and the NHS does all it can to prevent that. The more successful you are at that, the more expensive it gets to keep alive those you've already kept alive.
Agreed with that research. Also research into how to eliminate chronic conditions not just manage them, but that's not easy.
Last nights Iranian launch seems to have been more effective than the first night, the question is now whether Israel goes after the industry on the Gulf and Iran responds by closing Hormuz and if they attempt a truly massive launch in the very high hundreds/over 1000 missiles. Watch oil prices tomorrow/later if and when any of that goes down.
BRACE?
Nah, just watch
Comforting that the UK is clearly committed to de-escalation by sending warplanes to the area and going to a war footing. (Best read out in a nasal uninspring tone)
It's also about to issue a full red for travel to Israel and with the airspace closed appears to have zero plan to evacuate the 100s of brits there
Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative
Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.
Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!
In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.
Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.
Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.
Demographics are changing either way.
The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.
I know we disagree on this but the vast majority of the growing pressure on the NHS is not age related. It's growing at 3% in real terms per annum - that's simply far too fast to be explained by a bump in the demographic profile.
That's why I have the pessimistic view that a universal healthcare service is doomed to fail unless there is a punchy public health campaign to bring the general standard of health up significantly, or else start to restrict spending on treatments for preventable diseases or for those who are not looking after themselves.
Anyway, I'm off for 25k slow run. I've nearly lost my big toenail so that will probably offset the health gains...
Our age profile is growing too. Demand is overwhelmingly and exponentially set by age.
I'm 42 and I've set myself the goal of looking after myself since I turned 40, I've lost over 60 pounds by switching to my carnivore diet . . . But being in my 40s that has changed my interactions with the NHS from zero to zero.
Does the carnivore diet really work?
In one sense it’s just another fad that works by restricting calorie intake: The high fat intake probably helps with satiation, which is the main problem most dieters face - hunger is difficult to cope with. It’s also an expensive way to get your calories.
On the flip side, if it works for you then it works. Just make sure to supplement your diet with enough veggies to supply the essential bits and pieces you won’t get from meat alone - quite a few of the nuttier end of the US right wing “eating meat makes me more manly” brigade made themselves quite seriously ill due to things like vitamin C deficiency.
Expensive is relative.
Is meat expensive versus some other stuff? Yes, absolutely. On the other hand other choices aren't always cheaper.
Eg a pack of black pudding from Aldi is 99p. That will do my breakfast for a couple of days, or on the rare times I'm hungry after dinner I'll quickly cook a slice (25p). Most packets of crisps or sweets cost way more than 25p.
A kg of chicken thighs costs £6.50 at Aldi. That can do my lunch and evening meals for two days.
So £7.50 say for 3 meals a day, for 2 days. Just over a pound a meal.
A single McDonald's meal can cost £8.
A bag of Doritos as a snack, not a meal, can cost £2.50
WTF thinks after dinner , I fancy a slice of black pudding because it is cheap , or thinks multiple days dinner of battery hen thighs is yummy because they are dirt cheap. Fine if you like eating crap but what a f****ing life.
Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative
Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.
Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!
In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.
Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.
Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.
Demographics are changing either way.
The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.
I know we disagree on this but the vast majority of the growing pressure on the NHS is not age related. It's growing at 3% in real terms per annum - that's simply far too fast to be explained by a bump in the demographic profile.
That's why I have the pessimistic view that a universal healthcare service is doomed to fail unless there is a punchy public health campaign to bring the general standard of health up significantly, or else start to restrict spending on treatments for preventable diseases or for those who are not looking after themselves.
Anyway, I'm off for 25k slow run. I've nearly lost my big toenail so that will probably offset the health gains...
Our age profile is growing too. Demand is overwhelmingly and exponentially set by age.
I'm 42 and I've set myself the goal of looking after myself since I turned 40, I've lost over 60 pounds by switching to my carnivore diet . . . But being in my 40s that has changed my interactions with the NHS from zero to zero.
Does the carnivore diet really work?
In one sense it’s just another fad that works by restricting calorie intake: The high fat intake probably helps with satiation, which is the main problem most dieters face - hunger is difficult to cope with. It’s also an expensive way to get your calories.
On the flip side, if it works for you then it works. Just make sure to supplement your diet with enough veggies to supply the essential bits and pieces you won’t get from meat alone - quite a few of the nuttier end of the US right wing “eating meat makes me more manly” brigade made themselves quite seriously ill due to things like vitamin C deficiency.
Expensive is relative.
Is meat expensive versus some other stuff? Yes, absolutely. On the other hand other choices aren't always cheaper.
Eg a pack of black pudding from Aldi is 99p. That will do my breakfast for a couple of days, or on the rare times I'm hungry after dinner I'll quickly cook a slice (25p). Most packets of crisps or sweets cost way more than 25p.
A kg of chicken thighs costs £6.50 at Aldi. That can do my lunch and evening meals for two days.
So £7.50 say for 3 meals a day, for 2 days. Just over a pound a meal.
A single McDonald's meal can cost £8.
A bag of Doritos as a snack, not a meal, can cost £2.50
WTF thinks after dinner , I fancy a slice of black pudding because it is cheap , or thinks multiple days dinner of battery hen thighs is yummy because they are dirt cheap. Fine if you like eating crap but what a f****ing life.
People on a budget think about costs.
Personally I enjoy the food I eat, but I wouldn't say its for everyone. You need to find something that works for you, that you enjoy.
Last nights Iranian launch seems to have been more effective than the first night, the question is now whether Israel goes after the industry on the Gulf and Iran responds by closing Hormuz and if they attempt a truly massive launch in the very high hundreds/over 1000 missiles. Watch oil prices tomorrow/later if and when any of that goes down.
BRACE?
Nah, just watch
Comforting that the UK is clearly committed to de-escalation by sending warplanes to the area and going to a war footing. (Best read out in a nasal uninspring tone)
It's also about to issue a full red for travel to Israel and with the airspace closed appears to have zero plan to evacuate the 100s of brits there
They obviously chose to live there, why would we want to fly them out , they can get a dinghy job like the other millions.
Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative
Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.
Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!
In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.
Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.
Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.
Demographics are changing either way.
The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.
I know we disagree on this but the vast majority of the growing pressure on the NHS is not age related. It's growing at 3% in real terms per annum - that's simply far too fast to be explained by a bump in the demographic profile.
That's why I have the pessimistic view that a universal healthcare service is doomed to fail unless there is a punchy public health campaign to bring the general standard of health up significantly, or else start to restrict spending on treatments for preventable diseases or for those who are not looking after themselves.
Anyway, I'm off for 25k slow run. I've nearly lost my big toenail so that will probably offset the health gains...
Our age profile is growing too. Demand is overwhelmingly and exponentially set by age.
I'm 42 and I've set myself the goal of looking after myself since I turned 40, I've lost over 60 pounds by switching to my carnivore diet . . . But being in my 40s that has changed my interactions with the NHS from zero to zero.
There is good evidence that keeping fit and healthy from 40 onwards (at least) sets the tone for your old age.
And that being fit helps reduce the recovery time from serious illnesses and operations.
I’ve got a range of oldies in the family. The difference between those who did a bit of exercise constantly and kept active and the “we’ve retired, so not doing much is expected” ones is quite startling.
Oh, absolutely.
But there's kind of a paradox that those who aren't active tend to die younger, and the bills stop when they die.
Those who are active tend to live longer, accumulating more chronic conditions as they age.
But you also have to consider the time value of money. Putting off your death by 10 years puts off the costs associated with that by 10 years.
No, it doesn't.
Not if you then live with chronic conditions.
Ten years of life in your 80s or 90s is not the same as ten years of life in your 20s or 30s.
If.
It depends what happens in those 10 years. You might be fairly healthy in those 10 years, so the additional health costs are low and the high health costs typically associated with the last year of life are delayed, effectively saving money. Or you might have an expensive chronic condition and have much higher costs.
Generally, healthier, fitter people are putting off death *and* putting off the onset of expensive chronic conditions.
But, yeah, it’s complicated. So, how do we get people into the healthy ageing category? You get papers like this, https://www.embopress.org/doi/full/10.15252/embr.201439518 , arguing along similar lines to you and suggesting that we need to re-focus medical research on preventing or treating age-related conditions rather than on just extending lifespans.
It isn't an if for those who had formerly fatal conditions that are turned into chronic conditions.
That leaves the NHS with a decade of extra chronic conditions to handle, it doesn't solve them.
Eliminating chronic conditions would solve a lot of problems, but currently the only way to eliminate many is death and the NHS does all it can to prevent that. The more successful you are at that, the more expensive it gets to keep alive those you've already kept alive.
Agreed with that research. Also research into how to eliminate chronic conditions not just manage them, but that's not easy.
But we weren’t here talking about “those who had formerly fatal conditions that are turned into chronic conditions”. We were talking about those doing more exercise in late middle age.
Last nights Iranian launch seems to have been more effective than the first night, the question is now whether Israel goes after the industry on the Gulf and Iran responds by closing Hormuz and if they attempt a truly massive launch in the very high hundreds/over 1000 missiles. Watch oil prices tomorrow/later if and when any of that goes down.
BRACE?
Nah, just watch
Comforting that the UK is clearly committed to de-escalation by sending warplanes to the area and going to a war footing. (Best read out in a nasal uninspring tone)
It's also about to issue a full red for travel to Israel and with the airspace closed appears to have zero plan to evacuate the 100s of brits there
Israel didn't inform da Brits of their forthcoming attack!
Last nights Iranian launch seems to have been more effective than the first night, the question is now whether Israel goes after the industry on the Gulf and Iran responds by closing Hormuz and if they attempt a truly massive launch in the very high hundreds/over 1000 missiles. Watch oil prices tomorrow/later if and when any of that goes down.
BRACE?
Nah, just watch
Comforting that the UK is clearly committed to de-escalation by sending warplanes to the area and going to a war footing. (Best read out in a nasal uninspring tone)
It's also about to issue a full red for travel to Israel and with the airspace closed appears to have zero plan to evacuate the 100s of brits there
Israel didn't inform da Brits of their forthcoming attack!
A proper government would have plans for the evacuation of Brits in Israel oven ready, its not like they were all singing Kumbaya and listening to Bob Dylan and Joan Baez before this weekend
Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative
Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.
Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!
In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.
Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.
Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.
Demographics are changing either way.
The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.
I know we disagree on this but the vast majority of the growing pressure on the NHS is not age related. It's growing at 3% in real terms per annum - that's simply far too fast to be explained by a bump in the demographic profile.
That's why I have the pessimistic view that a universal healthcare service is doomed to fail unless there is a punchy public health campaign to bring the general standard of health up significantly, or else start to restrict spending on treatments for preventable diseases or for those who are not looking after themselves.
Anyway, I'm off for 25k slow run. I've nearly lost my big toenail so that will probably offset the health gains...
Our age profile is growing too. Demand is overwhelmingly and exponentially set by age.
I'm 42 and I've set myself the goal of looking after myself since I turned 40, I've lost over 60 pounds by switching to my carnivore diet . . . But being in my 40s that has changed my interactions with the NHS from zero to zero.
Does the carnivore diet really work?
In one sense it’s just another fad that works by restricting calorie intake: The high fat intake probably helps with satiation, which is the main problem most dieters face - hunger is difficult to cope with. It’s also an expensive way to get your calories.
On the flip side, if it works for you then it works. Just make sure to supplement your diet with enough veggies to supply the essential bits and pieces you won’t get from meat alone - quite a few of the nuttier end of the US right wing “eating meat makes me more manly” brigade made themselves quite seriously ill due to things like vitamin C deficiency.
Expensive is relative.
Is meat expensive versus some other stuff? Yes, absolutely. On the other hand other choices aren't always cheaper.
Eg a pack of black pudding from Aldi is 99p. That will do my breakfast for a couple of days, or on the rare times I'm hungry after dinner I'll quickly cook a slice (25p). Most packets of crisps or sweets cost way more than 25p.
A kg of chicken thighs costs £6.50 at Aldi. That can do my lunch and evening meals for two days.
So £7.50 say for 3 meals a day, for 2 days. Just over a pound a meal.
A single McDonald's meal can cost £8.
A bag of Doritos as a snack, not a meal, can cost £2.50
A McPlant meal cost me £6.29 the other day (as the burger, medium chips and a drink).*
Compares with a Burger King Vegan Royale ON ITS OWN now costing over £7!
(* I only ever have a McDonalds for "research" purposes)
Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative
Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.
Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!
In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.
Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.
Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.
Demographics are changing either way.
The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.
I know we disagree on this but the vast majority of the growing pressure on the NHS is not age related. It's growing at 3% in real terms per annum - that's simply far too fast to be explained by a bump in the demographic profile.
That's why I have the pessimistic view that a universal healthcare service is doomed to fail unless there is a punchy public health campaign to bring the general standard of health up significantly, or else start to restrict spending on treatments for preventable diseases or for those who are not looking after themselves.
Anyway, I'm off for 25k slow run. I've nearly lost my big toenail so that will probably offset the health gains...
Our age profile is growing too. Demand is overwhelmingly and exponentially set by age.
I'm 42 and I've set myself the goal of looking after myself since I turned 40, I've lost over 60 pounds by switching to my carnivore diet . . . But being in my 40s that has changed my interactions with the NHS from zero to zero.
There is good evidence that keeping fit and healthy from 40 onwards (at least) sets the tone for your old age.
And that being fit helps reduce the recovery time from serious illnesses and operations.
I’ve got a range of oldies in the family. The difference between those who did a bit of exercise constantly and kept active and the “we’ve retired, so not doing much is expected” ones is quite startling.
Oh, absolutely.
But there's kind of a paradox that those who aren't active tend to die younger, and the bills stop when they die.
Those who are active tend to live longer, accumulating more chronic conditions as they age.
But you also have to consider the time value of money. Putting off your death by 10 years puts off the costs associated with that by 10 years.
No, it doesn't.
Not if you then live with chronic conditions.
Ten years of life in your 80s or 90s is not the same as ten years of life in your 20s or 30s.
If.
It depends what happens in those 10 years. You might be fairly healthy in those 10 years, so the additional health costs are low and the high health costs typically associated with the last year of life are delayed, effectively saving money. Or you might have an expensive chronic condition and have much higher costs.
Generally, healthier, fitter people are putting off death *and* putting off the onset of expensive chronic conditions.
But, yeah, it’s complicated. So, how do we get people into the healthy ageing category? You get papers like this, https://www.embopress.org/doi/full/10.15252/embr.201439518 , arguing along similar lines to you and suggesting that we need to re-focus medical research on preventing or treating age-related conditions rather than on just extending lifespans.
It isn't an if for those who had formerly fatal conditions that are turned into chronic conditions.
That leaves the NHS with a decade of extra chronic conditions to handle, it doesn't solve them.
Eliminating chronic conditions would solve a lot of problems, but currently the only way to eliminate many is death and the NHS does all it can to prevent that. The more successful you are at that, the more expensive it gets to keep alive those you've already kept alive.
Agreed with that research. Also research into how to eliminate chronic conditions not just manage them, but that's not easy.
But we weren’t here talking about “those who had formerly fatal conditions that are turned into chronic conditions”. We were talking about those doing more exercise in late middle age.
I've been talking all along about “those who had formerly fatal conditions that are turned into chronic conditions”.
That is what has happened a lot and is driving costs up.
I'm never one to want to see the price of petrol go up, but if paying more for a litre of unleaded is the price we need to pay to see the elimination of the Iranian regime then I'm prepared to pay it.
I hope the Israelis smash the Iranian nuclear, industrial and oil refineries into dust unless or until there's regime change.
I think it very unlikely that we will see (Iranian) regime change as a result.
(This could backfire on Bibi and we see the Israeli government fall.)
Yes, I'm not entirely convinced that Netanyahu and his mates are best placed to inspire ordinary Iranians to overthrow their government.
Last nights Iranian launch seems to have been more effective than the first night, the question is now whether Israel goes after the industry on the Gulf and Iran responds by closing Hormuz and if they attempt a truly massive launch in the very high hundreds/over 1000 missiles. Watch oil prices tomorrow/later if and when any of that goes down.
BRACE?
Nah, just watch
Comforting that the UK is clearly committed to de-escalation by sending warplanes to the area and going to a war footing. (Best read out in a nasal uninspring tone)
It's also about to issue a full red for travel to Israel and with the airspace closed appears to have zero plan to evacuate the 100s of brits there
They obviously chose to live there, why would we want to fly them out , they can get a dinghy job like the other millions.
Hell of a Dinghy! They might get kidnapped like Greta
Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative
Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.
Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!
In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.
Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.
Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.
Demographics are changing either way.
The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.
I know we disagree on this but the vast majority of the growing pressure on the NHS is not age related. It's growing at 3% in real terms per annum - that's simply far too fast to be explained by a bump in the demographic profile.
That's why I have the pessimistic view that a universal healthcare service is doomed to fail unless there is a punchy public health campaign to bring the general standard of health up significantly, or else start to restrict spending on treatments for preventable diseases or for those who are not looking after themselves.
Anyway, I'm off for 25k slow run. I've nearly lost my big toenail so that will probably offset the health gains...
Our age profile is growing too. Demand is overwhelmingly and exponentially set by age.
I'm 42 and I've set myself the goal of looking after myself since I turned 40, I've lost over 60 pounds by switching to my carnivore diet . . . But being in my 40s that has changed my interactions with the NHS from zero to zero.
Does the carnivore diet really work?
In one sense it’s just another fad that works by restricting calorie intake: The high fat intake probably helps with satiation, which is the main problem most dieters face - hunger is difficult to cope with. It’s also an expensive way to get your calories.
On the flip side, if it works for you then it works. Just make sure to supplement your diet with enough veggies to supply the essential bits and pieces you won’t get from meat alone - quite a few of the nuttier end of the US right wing “eating meat makes me more manly” brigade made themselves quite seriously ill due to things like vitamin C deficiency.
Expensive is relative.
Is meat expensive versus some other stuff? Yes, absolutely. On the other hand other choices aren't always cheaper.
Eg a pack of black pudding from Aldi is 99p. That will do my breakfast for a couple of days, or on the rare times I'm hungry after dinner I'll quickly cook a slice (25p). Most packets of crisps or sweets cost way more than 25p.
A kg of chicken thighs costs £6.50 at Aldi. That can do my lunch and evening meals for two days.
So £7.50 say for 3 meals a day, for 2 days. Just over a pound a meal.
A single McDonald's meal can cost £8.
A bag of Doritos as a snack, not a meal, can cost £2.50
A McPlant meal cost me £6.29 the other day (as the burger, medium chips and a drink).*
Compares with a Burger King Vegan Royale ON ITS OWN now costing over £7!
(* I only ever have a McDonalds for "research" purposes)
Indeed. Could get a full kg of chicken breasts or thighs for the cost of one McPlant meal.
Cooking for yourself is more affordable than takeaways.
I'm never one to want to see the price of petrol go up, but if paying more for a litre of unleaded is the price we need to pay to see the elimination of the Iranian regime then I'm prepared to pay it.
I hope the Israelis smash the Iranian nuclear, industrial and oil refineries into dust unless or until there's regime change.
I think it very unlikely that we will see (Iranian) regime change as a result.
(This could backfire on Bibi and we see the Israeli government fall.)
Yes, I'm not entirely convinced that Netanyahu and his mates are best placed to inspire ordinary Iranians to overthrow their government.
A couple of minutes reading PB's premier dietician and Bibiophile would do wonders I'm sure.
Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative
Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.
Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!
In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.
Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.
Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.
Demographics are changing either way.
The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.
5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.
Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.
The over 65 population has grown by about 32%, 2000-2019.
Meanwhile the health budget has increased by 105%, in real terms. We're in big trouble.
Considering older people are more than 10x more likely to use health services than younger people that budget change is entirely explained by demographics.
Let's say 100% of the health budget goes on over 65-year olds, and that population has increased by 32%.
If it's entirely down to demographics, how much should the budget have increased by?
Its not the case that 100% goes to them so that doesn't work.
Instead the over 65s demand dramatically more than under 65s and that grows exponentially. Over 75s demand dramatically more than 65 year olds, over 85s demand dramatically more than 75 year olds etc
Exponential growth tends to affect the NHS.
The number of people aged over 90 has increased by about 40% over that period - a very significant increase and no doubt a driver of costs.
But it's still nowhere near the 105% growth overall, and over 90s still represent only 1% of the population. The evidence is chronic conditions have increased significantly - we have lots of people spending decades getting care for diseases. We are also better than ever at treating them.
The ugly truth is our level health spending is a political choice, and no government (particularly this Labour government) is going to do anything other than chuck loads of cash at it.
Chronic conditions are tied to age.
Plus the reason why the over x population has increased is because we have become better at turning fatal conditions into chronic ones.
Turning a fatal condition into a chronic condition doesn't cure the condition, it just means that the person doesn't die but lives longer with that and other conditions. That may be a good thing for the individual, but its expensive.
Chronic conditions go away when people die. Prevent death, you have more chronic conditions to treat.
Illustrative example - let's imagine 100% of health spending goes on over 65s, and let's say that 40% of the over 65 population has a chronic condition.
We know that the over 65 population has increased by 32%. So the total number of people living with chronic conditions should have increased by 32% too, and the costs associated with them increased by 32%.
But no. Total health spending has increased by more than 3x that much. It is not entirely explained by an aging population. It's either because the age-specific rate of chronic conditions has increased (i.e. the population has become less healthy), or the cost of treatment has grown.
Over long time periods, you also have to take into account the Baumol Effect . Basically, when you have an industry which requires a lot of labour, which it is difficult to improve productivity - like many aspects of health and care - the cost goes up faster than industries which have good productivity improvements. This is because the people employed in the low productivity industry could move to a higher productivity industry, so you can't just let their pay drop that much in comparison. This effect occurs even in the absence of people getting sicker or management fucking up.
This is one reason why growth - although a good idea for other reasons - didn't really help us pay for the NHS or pensions.
As the country as a whole gets richer then pensioners and NHS workers will also want to share in that increase in wealth.
Went to a somewhat strange hotel yesterday, near Coventry. Served Afternoon Tea at lunchtime, options being Traditional ..... finger sandwiches and such ..... and Savoury .... small pice of pork pie and Korean type meat roll. Variety of 'beverage' teas and coffees, too.
That was in the restaurant; conventional lunches available in the bar.
I'm never one to want to see the price of petrol go up, but if paying more for a litre of unleaded is the price we need to pay to see the elimination of the Iranian regime then I'm prepared to pay it.
I hope the Israelis smash the Iranian nuclear, industrial and oil refineries into dust unless or until there's regime change.
Unfortunately, there's also a cost in terms of increasing revenue for the Russian government to help it bombard Ukraine.
Rachel Reeves is braced for revised forecasts by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) to blow a £20bn hole in her tax and spending plans before the autumn budget.
Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative
Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.
Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!
In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.
Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.
Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.
Demographics are changing either way.
The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.
I know we disagree on this but the vast majority of the growing pressure on the NHS is not age related. It's growing at 3% in real terms per annum - that's simply far too fast to be explained by a bump in the demographic profile.
That's why I have the pessimistic view that a universal healthcare service is doomed to fail unless there is a punchy public health campaign to bring the general standard of health up significantly, or else start to restrict spending on treatments for preventable diseases or for those who are not looking after themselves.
Anyway, I'm off for 25k slow run. I've nearly lost my big toenail so that will probably offset the health gains...
Our age profile is growing too. Demand is overwhelmingly and exponentially set by age.
I'm 42 and I've set myself the goal of looking after myself since I turned 40, I've lost over 60 pounds by switching to my carnivore diet . . . But being in my 40s that has changed my interactions with the NHS from zero to zero.
There is good evidence that keeping fit and healthy from 40 onwards (at least) sets the tone for your old age.
And that being fit helps reduce the recovery time from serious illnesses and operations.
I’ve got a range of oldies in the family. The difference between those who did a bit of exercise constantly and kept active and the “we’ve retired, so not doing much is expected” ones is quite startling.
Oh, absolutely.
But there's kind of a paradox that those who aren't active tend to die younger, and the bills stop when they die.
Those who are active tend to live longer, accumulating more chronic conditions as they age.
But you also have to consider the time value of money. Putting off your death by 10 years puts off the costs associated with that by 10 years.
No, it doesn't.
Not if you then live with chronic conditions.
Ten years of life in your 80s or 90s is not the same as ten years of life in your 20s or 30s.
If.
It depends what happens in those 10 years. You might be fairly healthy in those 10 years, so the additional health costs are low and the high health costs typically associated with the last year of life are delayed, effectively saving money. Or you might have an expensive chronic condition and have much higher costs.
Generally, healthier, fitter people are putting off death *and* putting off the onset of expensive chronic conditions.
But, yeah, it’s complicated. So, how do we get people into the healthy ageing category? You get papers like this, https://www.embopress.org/doi/full/10.15252/embr.201439518 , arguing along similar lines to you and suggesting that we need to re-focus medical research on preventing or treating age-related conditions rather than on just extending lifespans.
It isn't an if for those who had formerly fatal conditions that are turned into chronic conditions.
That leaves the NHS with a decade of extra chronic conditions to handle, it doesn't solve them.
Eliminating chronic conditions would solve a lot of problems, but currently the only way to eliminate many is death and the NHS does all it can to prevent that. The more successful you are at that, the more expensive it gets to keep alive those you've already kept alive.
Agreed with that research. Also research into how to eliminate chronic conditions not just manage them, but that's not easy.
But we weren’t here talking about “those who had formerly fatal conditions that are turned into chronic conditions”. We were talking about those doing more exercise in late middle age.
I've been talking all along about “those who had formerly fatal conditions that are turned into chronic conditions”.
That is what has happened a lot and is driving costs up.
Yes, but look back through this particular conversation, and you can see what we were discussing. It’s not that.
I'm never one to want to see the price of petrol go up, but if paying more for a litre of unleaded is the price we need to pay to see the elimination of the Iranian regime then I'm prepared to pay it.
I hope the Israelis smash the Iranian nuclear, industrial and oil refineries into dust unless or until there's regime change.
Unfortunately, there's also a cost in terms of increasing revenue for the Russian government to help it bombard Ukraine.
But also, demonstrating the complex interrelated nature of the modern world, fewer Iranian weapons going to support the Russian war effort.
Rachel Reeves is braced for revised forecasts by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) to blow a £20bn hole in her tax and spending plans before the autumn budget.
I'm never one to want to see the price of petrol go up, but if paying more for a litre of unleaded is the price we need to pay to see the elimination of the Iranian regime then I'm prepared to pay it.
I hope the Israelis smash the Iranian nuclear, industrial and oil refineries into dust unless or until there's regime change.
Unfortunately, there's also a cost in terms of increasing revenue for the Russian government to help it bombard Ukraine.
And getting more populist governments in place in Western Europe too, would be a big boost for the Refukkers here.
How popular was ... on day 300 as UK Prime Minister?
Net favourability:
+46 | Tony Blair +21 | John Major +19 | Boris Johnson +18 | Theresa May -6 | Margaret Thatcer -6 | David Cameron -22 | Rishi Sunak -30 | Gordon Brown -33 | Keir Starmer
How popular was ... on day 300 as UK Prime Minister?
Net favourability:
+46 | Tony Blair +21 | John Major +19 | Boris Johnson +18 | Theresa May -6 | Margaret Thatcer -6 | David Cameron -22 | Rishi Sunak -30 | Gordon Brown -33 | Keir Starmer
👉 britainelects.com
The only way is down
What would be interesting to know is how many got more popular as time went on? Any?
Last nights Iranian launch seems to have been more effective than the first night, the question is now whether Israel goes after the industry on the Gulf and Iran responds by closing Hormuz and if they attempt a truly massive launch in the very high hundreds/over 1000 missiles. Watch oil prices tomorrow/later if and when any of that goes down.
BRACE?
Nah, just watch
Comforting that the UK is clearly committed to de-escalation by sending warplanes to the area and going to a war footing. (Best read out in a nasal uninspring tone)
It's also about to issue a full red for travel to Israel and with the airspace closed appears to have zero plan to evacuate the 100s of brits there
Israel didn't inform da Brits of their forthcoming attack!
They"ll be very worried about Trump. The Iranians are proving more resilient than they thought, and now he doesn't seem to want to get involved.
How popular was ... on day 300 as UK Prime Minister?
Net favourability:
+46 | Tony Blair +21 | John Major +19 | Boris Johnson +18 | Theresa May -6 | Margaret Thatcer -6 | David Cameron -22 | Rishi Sunak -30 | Gordon Brown -33 | Keir Starmer
👉 britainelects.com
The only way is down
Interesting numbers to see. They don’t correlate with long-term success that well. Johnson and May are in the top half, but both had ignominious ends. Major is second on the chart and lost badly his second general election. Cameron is in the bottom half, but had a relatively successful career; he was certainly around longer than his successors.
Last nights Iranian launch seems to have been more effective than the first night, the question is now whether Israel goes after the industry on the Gulf and Iran responds by closing Hormuz and if they attempt a truly massive launch in the very high hundreds/over 1000 missiles. Watch oil prices tomorrow/later if and when any of that goes down.
BRACE?
Nah, just watch
Comforting that the UK is clearly committed to de-escalation by sending warplanes to the area and going to a war footing. (Best read out in a nasal uninspring tone)
It's also about to issue a full red for travel to Israel and with the airspace closed appears to have zero plan to evacuate the 100s of brits there
Israel didn't inform da Brits of their forthcoming attack!
They"ll be very worried about Trump. The Iranians are proving more resilient than they thought, and now he doesn't seem to want to get involved.
Putin told him not to.
Looks like Israel are about to learn the golden rule about Trump. If Putin wants something, eventually so does Trump.
How popular was ... on day 300 as UK Prime Minister?
Net favourability:
+46 | Tony Blair +21 | John Major +19 | Boris Johnson +18 | Theresa May -6 | Margaret Thatcer -6 | David Cameron -22 | Rishi Sunak -30 | Gordon Brown -33 | Keir Starmer
👉 britainelects.com
The only way is down
What would be interesting to know is how many got more popular as time went on? Any?
The multi government/termers had boosts back after winning elections but trend not your friend long term Cameron had a minor come back into the 2015 election Generally time = decline
How popular was ... on day 300 as UK Prime Minister?
Net favourability:
+46 | Tony Blair +21 | John Major +19 | Boris Johnson +18 | Theresa May -6 | Margaret Thatcer -6 | David Cameron -22 | Rishi Sunak -30 | Gordon Brown -33 | Keir Starmer
👉 britainelects.com
The only way is down
Interesting numbers to see. They don’t correlate with long-term success that well. Johnson and May are in the top half, but both had ignominious ends. Major is second on the chart and lost badly his second general election. Cameron is in the bottom half, but had a relatively successful career; he was certainly around longer than his successors.
Cameron was up against Ed, Major up against Tony, so they were playing in different leagues.
How popular was ... on day 300 as UK Prime Minister?
Net favourability:
+46 | Tony Blair +21 | John Major +19 | Boris Johnson +18 | Theresa May -6 | Margaret Thatcer -6 | David Cameron -22 | Rishi Sunak -30 | Gordon Brown -33 | Keir Starmer
👉 britainelects.com
The only way is down
Interesting numbers to see. They don’t correlate with long-term success that well. Johnson and May are in the top half, but both had ignominious ends. Major is second on the chart and lost badly his second general election. Cameron is in the bottom half, but had a relatively successful career; he was certainly around longer than his successors.
And bottom half/halfway Thatch won two subsequent landslides
Rachel Reeves is braced for revised forecasts by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) to blow a £20bn hole in her tax and spending plans before the autumn budget.
How popular was ... on day 300 as UK Prime Minister?
Net favourability:
+46 | Tony Blair +21 | John Major +19 | Boris Johnson +18 | Theresa May -6 | Margaret Thatcer -6 | David Cameron -22 | Rishi Sunak -30 | Gordon Brown -33 | Keir Starmer
👉 britainelects.com
The only way is down
Interesting numbers to see. They don’t correlate with long-term success that well. Johnson and May are in the top half, but both had ignominious ends. Major is second on the chart and lost badly his second general election. Cameron is in the bottom half, but had a relatively successful career; he was certainly around longer than his successors.
And bottom half/halfway Thatch won two subsequent landslides
Starmer is at pretty much Blairs worst ever level which was around Iraq (he was also -40 not long before quitting)
It's looking clear that the Israelis have got over-confident.
Why so Oracle, what do you see
I think they started to believe their own propaganda about the quality of their own intelligence.
They've clearly had a lot of help from inside the country and have been very efficient at using it, but the Iranians, for their part, have been preparing for this moment for thirty years. Their chain of command is still functioning and they're inflicting some quite damage.
Plus Trump is not falling in line to the extent expected.
If that dynamic continues, Netanyahu might even end up needing the off-ramp of Trump' s deal, and claim that he's won by setting back their nuclear programme and military.
Rachel Reeves is braced for revised forecasts by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) to blow a £20bn hole in her tax and spending plans before the autumn budget.
How popular was ... on day 300 as UK Prime Minister?
Net favourability:
+46 | Tony Blair +21 | John Major +19 | Boris Johnson +18 | Theresa May -6 | Margaret Thatcer -6 | David Cameron -22 | Rishi Sunak -30 | Gordon Brown -33 | Keir Starmer
👉 britainelects.com
The only way is down
What would be interesting to know is how many got more popular as time went on? Any?
Quite a few, actually, if this chart is to be believed;
(No source, but it looks like it's from Mark Pack's database.)
What's interesting is how hard-to-please Mr and Mrs Voter have become in recent decades. Even failures from the 50s to the 70s tended to have net positive scores.
It's looking clear that the Israelis have got over-confident.
Why so Oracle, what do you see
I think they started to believe their own propaganda about the quality of their own intelligence.
They've clearly had a lot of help from inside the country and have been very efficient at using it, but the Iranians, for their part, have been preparing for this moment for thirty years. Their chain of command is still functioning and they're inflicting some quite damage.
Plus Trump is not falling in line to the extent expected.
If that dynamic continues, Netanyahu might even end up needing the off-ramp of Trump' s deal, and claim that he's won by setting back their nuclear programme and military.
We have a way to go yet: I don’t think anything Iran has managed to do will dissuade the Israeli government from continuing the strikes or give them reason to pause.
The whole dimension of the conflict will change if the US gets drawn in too, which I would suggest is more likely than not, eventually.
How popular was ... on day 300 as UK Prime Minister?
Net favourability:
+46 | Tony Blair +21 | John Major +19 | Boris Johnson +18 | Theresa May -6 | Margaret Thatcer -6 | David Cameron -22 | Rishi Sunak -30 | Gordon Brown -33 | Keir Starmer
👉 britainelects.com
The only way is down
Interesting numbers to see. They don’t correlate with long-term success that well. Johnson and May are in the top half, but both had ignominious ends. Major is second on the chart and lost badly his second general election. Cameron is in the bottom half, but had a relatively successful career; he was certainly around longer than his successors.
Indeed, if one completely ignores the data that doesn't fit with the hypothesis, it's pretty great for Starmer.
How popular was ... on day 300 as UK Prime Minister?
Net favourability:
+46 | Tony Blair +21 | John Major +19 | Boris Johnson +18 | Theresa May -6 | Margaret Thatcer -6 | David Cameron -22 | Rishi Sunak -30 | Gordon Brown -33 | Keir Starmer
👉 britainelects.com
The only way is down
Interesting numbers to see. They don’t correlate with long-term success that well. Johnson and May are in the top half, but both had ignominious ends. Major is second on the chart and lost badly his second general election. Cameron is in the bottom half, but had a relatively successful career; he was certainly around longer than his successors.
Indeed, if one completely ignores the data that doesn't fit with the hypothesis, it's pretty great for Starmer.
I too noticed a lack of comment on Sunak’s and Brown’s fortunes.
It's looking clear that the Israelis have got over-confident.
Why so Oracle, what do you see
I think they started to believe their own propaganda about the quality of their own intelligence.
They've clearly had a lot of help from inside the country and have been very efficient at using it, but the Iranians, for their part, have been preparing for this moment for thirty years. Their chain of command is still functioning and they're inflicting some quite damage.
Plus Trump is not falling in line to the extent expected.
If that dynamic continues, Netanyahu might even end up needing the off-ramp of Trump' s deal, and claim that he's won by setting back their nuclear programme and military.
We have a way to go yet: I don’t think anything Iran has managed to do will dissuade the Israeli government from continuing the strikes or give them reason to pause.
The whole dimension of the conflict will change if the US gets drawn in too, which I would suggest is more likely than not, eventually.
TACO Trump won't get involved, he's too chickenshit.
However there's little reason why Israel can't continue to do the right thing as they are doing by themselves.
It's looking clear that the Israelis have got over-confident.
Why so Oracle, what do you see
I think they started to believe their own propaganda about the quality of their own intelligence.
They've clearly had a lot of help from inside the country and have been very efficient at using it, but the Iranians, for their part, have been preparing for this moment for thirty years. Their chain of command is still functioning and they're inflicting some quite damage.
Plus Trump is not falling in line to the extent expected.
If that dynamic continues, Netanyahu might even end up needing the off-ramp of Trump' s deal, and claim that he's won by setting back their nuclear programme and military.
How popular was ... on day 300 as UK Prime Minister?
Net favourability:
+46 | Tony Blair +21 | John Major +19 | Boris Johnson +18 | Theresa May -6 | Margaret Thatcer -6 | David Cameron -22 | Rishi Sunak -30 | Gordon Brown -33 | Keir Starmer
👉 britainelects.com
The only way is down
Interesting numbers to see. They don’t correlate with long-term success that well. Johnson and May are in the top half, but both had ignominious ends. Major is second on the chart and lost badly his second general election. Cameron is in the bottom half, but had a relatively successful career; he was certainly around longer than his successors.
Cameron was up against Ed, Major up against Tony, so they were playing in different leagues.
Plus its a bit disingenuous after 1 year to say "but he lost the second election".
Rather glossing over the more pertinent point that he won the first.
I'm never one to want to see the price of petrol go up, but if paying more for a litre of unleaded is the price we need to pay to see the elimination of the Iranian regime then I'm prepared to pay it.
I hope the Israelis smash the Iranian nuclear, industrial and oil refineries into dust unless or until there's regime change.
I think it very unlikely that we will see (Iranian) regime change as a result.
(This could backfire on Bibi and we see the Israeli government fall.)
Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative
Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.
Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!
In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.
Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.
Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.
Demographics are changing either way.
The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.
I know we disagree on this but the vast majority of the growing pressure on the NHS is not age related. It's growing at 3% in real terms per annum - that's simply far too fast to be explained by a bump in the demographic profile.
That's why I have the pessimistic view that a universal healthcare service is doomed to fail unless there is a punchy public health campaign to bring the general standard of health up significantly, or else start to restrict spending on treatments for preventable diseases or for those who are not looking after themselves.
Anyway, I'm off for 25k slow run. I've nearly lost my big toenail so that will probably offset the health gains...
Our age profile is growing too. Demand is overwhelmingly and exponentially set by age.
I'm 42 and I've set myself the goal of looking after myself since I turned 40, I've lost over 60 pounds by switching to my carnivore diet . . . But being in my 40s that has changed my interactions with the NHS from zero to zero.
Does the carnivore diet really work?
For me it has, yes. 2 years this October I've been on the diet and I'm the healthiest I've been since my 20s and feel much better for it.
When I was overweight or obese I was eating when I was hungry, but the problem is I was hungry even though I'd had enough calories. Eat less isn't amazing advice to someone who is eating because they are very hungry.
The diet for me works because it has eliminated my food cravings. Carbs turn to glucose which shoots your blood sugar up but then crashes which makes you hungry again even if you've already had enough calories to eat.
Protein on the other hand doesn't spike like that and the body very slowly turns it into glucose only at the rate your body requires for eg your brain etc, which means you get the necessary glucose without consuming any, but don't get spikes and crashes.
There's no doubt the keto diet helps with weight loss and has numerous other benefits such as more physical and mental energy..if you have the discipline to cut out bread, pasta and other carbs..🧐
From that list of former PMs approval ratings after 300 days, positions 1-6 all won re-election (by being PM after the next election), numbers 7 and 8 did not, and Starmer is in 9th place.
From that list of former PMs approval ratings after 300 days, positions 1-6 all won re-election (by being PM after the next election), numbers 7 and 8 did not, and Starmer is in 9th place.
In what appears to be an absence of VI polling this weekend, Merlin Strategy have polling out on a variety of issues at this link https://merlinstrategy.com/recent-polling/ Under 'looking for growth'
It has no VI but 'would consider voting for' at
31% Labour
28% Tory
34% Reform
21% LD
16% Green
5% SNP
The sub samples (due klaxon alert as required) are illuminating. Wales should absolutely terrify Labour..........
From that list of former PMs approval ratings after 300 days, positions 1-6 all won re-election (by being PM after the next election), numbers 7 and 8 did not, and Starmer is in 9th place.
Interesting.
Boris didn't. Day 300 was long after Dec 2019
What we don't have is an example of someone doing this badly and going on to win.
How popular was ... on day 300 as UK Prime Minister?
Net favourability:
+46 | Tony Blair +21 | John Major +19 | Boris Johnson +18 | Theresa May -6 | Margaret Thatcer -6 | David Cameron -22 | Rishi Sunak -30 | Gordon Brown -33 | Keir Starmer
👉 britainelects.com
The only way is down
Interesting numbers to see. They don’t correlate with long-term success that well. Johnson and May are in the top half, but both had ignominious ends. Major is second on the chart and lost badly his second general election. Cameron is in the bottom half, but had a relatively successful career; he was certainly around longer than his successors.
Cameron was up against Ed, Major up against Tony, so they were playing in different leagues.
That doesn't help Starmer, up against the very impressive Jenrick.
From that list of former PMs approval ratings after 300 days, positions 1-6 all won re-election (by being PM after the next election), numbers 7 and 8 did not, and Starmer is in 9th place.
Interesting.
Boris didn't. Day 300 was long after Dec 2019
What we don't have is an example of someone doing this badly and going on to win.
Last nights Iranian launch seems to have been more effective than the first night, the question is now whether Israel goes after the industry on the Gulf and Iran responds by closing Hormuz and if they attempt a truly massive launch in the very high hundreds/over 1000 missiles. Watch oil prices tomorrow/later if and when any of that goes down.
BRACE?
Nah, just watch
Comforting that the UK is clearly committed to de-escalation by sending warplanes to the area and going to a war footing. (Best read out in a nasal uninspring tone)
It's also about to issue a full red for travel to Israel and with the airspace closed appears to have zero plan to evacuate the 100s of brits there
Israel didn't inform da Brits of their forthcoming attack!
Do the British government and taxpayer have any responsibility for rescuing British passport holders who also hold Israeli nationality?
Last nights Iranian launch seems to have been more effective than the first night, the question is now whether Israel goes after the industry on the Gulf and Iran responds by closing Hormuz and if they attempt a truly massive launch in the very high hundreds/over 1000 missiles. Watch oil prices tomorrow/later if and when any of that goes down.
BRACE?
Nah, just watch
Comforting that the UK is clearly committed to de-escalation by sending warplanes to the area and going to a war footing. (Best read out in a nasal uninspring tone)
It's also about to issue a full red for travel to Israel and with the airspace closed appears to have zero plan to evacuate the 100s of brits there
Israel didn't inform da Brits of their forthcoming attack!
Do the British government and taxpayer have any responsibility for rescuing British passport holders who also hold Israeli nationality?
Well if we can pay gazillions to give away Chagos Islands then anything is possible for these idiots.
How popular was ... on day 300 as UK Prime Minister?
Net favourability:
+46 | Tony Blair +21 | John Major +19 | Boris Johnson +18 | Theresa May -6 | Margaret Thatcer -6 | David Cameron -22 | Rishi Sunak -30 | Gordon Brown -33 | Keir Starmer
From that list of former PMs approval ratings after 300 days, positions 1-6 all won re-election (by being PM after the next election), numbers 7 and 8 did not, and Starmer is in 9th place.
Interesting.
Boris didn't. Day 300 was long after Dec 2019
What we don't have is an example of someone doing this badly and going on to win.
Indeed
Is is only Cameron and Thatcher who improved on this rating? Cameron I remember never being liked that much but sort of bumped along.
From that list of former PMs approval ratings after 300 days, positions 1-6 all won re-election (by being PM after the next election), numbers 7 and 8 did not, and Starmer is in 9th place.
Interesting.
Boris didn't. Day 300 was long after Dec 2019
What we don't have is an example of someone doing this badly and going on to win.
Indeed
Is is only Cameron and Thatcher who improved on this rating? Cameron I remember never being liked that much but sort of bumped along.
They all varied. Even Brown had recovery blips. In general, the immediate aftermath of reelections notwithstanding where it recovers in a honeymoon, the trend is downwards until removed by decap or election
Pb brains trust: Anyone have any experience of chiropractors? I've had a bad back for about three weeks now. Friend of a friend has recommended I seek out a McTimoney chiropractor but this could be quackery for all I know.
I have no doubt that back pain is sort-of-psychological: your body thinks it's about to damage itself, and tenses up. The trick is trying to get it to relax again. I'd wondered whether this might be a chiropractor's approach. I have, in the past, managed to cure back pain by going on a boat trip to lool at dolphins. It was so amazing that I forgot all about it. But I think it's like trying to shock yourself out of hiccups: it's not really repeatable (nor practical).
Getting your back to relax was the basis for a colleague's recommendation – take a bunch of painkillers then go to bed with your electric blanket on. The heat encourages muscles to relax and the painkillers stop everything tensing up at the slightest twinge.
Basically, sit down, cross your leg and lean gently forwards for a few seconds.
But there are about a zillion different causes of back pain so YMMV. As a vaguely on-topic link, Stephen Ward of the Profumo Affair made his fortune fixing the backs of the rich, famous and well-connected.
Governments are always more willing to promise to shield people from the effects of world events than they are to explain that there will be afterwards financial costs from doing this.
From that list of former PMs approval ratings after 300 days, positions 1-6 all won re-election (by being PM after the next election), numbers 7 and 8 did not, and Starmer is in 9th place.
Interesting.
Boris didn't. Day 300 was long after Dec 2019
What we don't have is an example of someone doing this badly and going on to win.
Indeed
Is is only Cameron and Thatcher who improved on this rating? Cameron I remember never being liked that much but sort of bumped along.
They all varied. Even Brown had recovery blips. In general, the immediate aftermath of reelections notwithstanding where it recovers in a honeymoon, the trend is downwards until removed by decap or election
Major's ratings improved meaningfully (but insufficiently) from '94 to '97. One difference now is that 31% then was a landslide defeat, now it's probably a meaningful victory as long as the anti vote isn't too efficient.
Governments are always more willing to promise to shield people from the effects of world events than they are to explain that there will be afterwards financial costs from doing this.
I always said they should have stuck 5 or 10p on petrol last year in the budget. Missed the boat now.
I'm never one to want to see the price of petrol go up, but if paying more for a litre of unleaded is the price we need to pay to see the elimination of the Iranian regime then I'm prepared to pay it.
I hope the Israelis smash the Iranian nuclear, industrial and oil refineries into dust unless or until there's regime change.
What about flattening Tehran, Gaza style?
How many people across the Middle East is Bibi allowed to kill since 0ctober 7th 2023? How many deaths has he sanctioned since he became Prime Minister? He will go down in history and one of the World's greatest monsters.
Now before you charge me with anti-Semitism, my concern is for Netanyahu's morality. I am not questioning Judaism or the right for Israel to exist.
Governments are always more willing to promise to shield people from the effects of world events than they are to explain that there will be afterwards financial costs from doing this.
I always said they should have stuck 5 or 10p on petrol last year in the budget. Missed the boat now.
And that would have helped how? The Government currently takes just under 60% of the money you pay for fuel in tax. Given how much that feeds in to the costs of practically everything else we have to pay for it is idiotic that the tax take is so high.
Governments are always more willing to promise to shield people from the effects of world events than they are to explain that there will be afterwards financial costs from doing this.
I always said they should have stuck 5 or 10p on petrol last year in the budget. Missed the boat now.
And that would have helped how? The Government currently takes just under 60% of the money you pay for fuel in tax. Given how much that feeds in to the costs of practically everything else we have to pay for it is idiotic that the tax take is so high.
If governments spend then they need to tax.
And I would prefer they taxes consumption and property than work.
Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative
Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.
Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!
In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.
Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.
Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.
Demographics are changing either way.
The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.
I know we disagree on this but the vast majority of the growing pressure on the NHS is not age related. It's growing at 3% in real terms per annum - that's simply far too fast to be explained by a bump in the demographic profile.
That's why I have the pessimistic view that a universal healthcare service is doomed to fail unless there is a punchy public health campaign to bring the general standard of health up significantly, or else start to restrict spending on treatments for preventable diseases or for those who are not looking after themselves.
Anyway, I'm off for 25k slow run. I've nearly lost my big toenail so that will probably offset the health gains...
Our age profile is growing too. Demand is overwhelmingly and exponentially set by age.
I'm 42 and I've set myself the goal of looking after myself since I turned 40, I've lost over 60 pounds by switching to my carnivore diet . . . But being in my 40s that has changed my interactions with the NHS from zero to zero.
Does the carnivore diet really work?
In one sense it’s just another fad that works by restricting calorie intake: The high fat intake probably helps with satiation, which is the main problem most dieters face - hunger is difficult to cope with. It’s also an expensive way to get your calories.
On the flip side, if it works for you then it works. Just make sure to supplement your diet with enough veggies to supply the essential bits and pieces you won’t get from meat alone - quite a few of the nuttier end of the US right wing “eating meat makes me more manly” brigade made themselves quite seriously ill due to things like vitamin C deficiency.
Expensive is relative.
Is meat expensive versus some other stuff? Yes, absolutely. On the other hand other choices aren't always cheaper.
Eg a pack of black pudding from Aldi is 99p. That will do my breakfast for a couple of days, or on the rare times I'm hungry after dinner I'll quickly cook a slice (25p). Most packets of crisps or sweets cost way more than 25p.
A kg of chicken thighs costs £6.50 at Aldi. That can do my lunch and evening meals for two days.
So £7.50 say for 3 meals a day, for 2 days. Just over a pound a meal.
A single McDonald's meal can cost £8.
A bag of Doritos as a snack, not a meal, can cost £2.50
WTF thinks after dinner , I fancy a slice of black pudding because it is cheap , or thinks multiple days dinner of battery hen thighs is yummy because they are dirt cheap. Fine if you like eating crap but what a f****ing life.
I never took you for a snob Malcolm. Personally I don't like Black Pudding - its a texture thing - but the vast majority of my friends think it is fab and would certainly have it as a snack if it were available.
I'm never one to want to see the price of petrol go up, but if paying more for a litre of unleaded is the price we need to pay to see the elimination of the Iranian regime then I'm prepared to pay it.
I hope the Israelis smash the Iranian nuclear, industrial and oil refineries into dust unless or until there's regime change.
What about flattening Tehran, Gaza style?
How many people across the Middle East is Bibi allowed to kill since 0ctober 7th 2023? How many deaths has he sanctioned since he became Prime Minister? He will go down in history and one of the World's greatest monsters.
Now before you charge me with anti-Semitism, my concern is for Netanyahu's morality. I am not questioning Judaism or the right for Israel to exist.
Comments
Is meat expensive versus some other stuff? Yes, absolutely. On the other hand other choices aren't always cheaper.
Eg a pack of black pudding from Aldi is 99p. That will do my breakfast for a couple of days, or on the rare times I'm hungry after dinner I'll quickly cook a slice (25p). Most packets of crisps or sweets cost way more than 25p.
A kg of chicken thighs costs £6.50 at Aldi. That can do my lunch and evening meals for two days.
So £7.50 say for 3 meals a day, for 2 days. Just over a pound a meal.
A single McDonald's meal can cost £8.
A bag of Doritos as a snack, not a meal, can cost £2.50
The point I'm trying to drive home is that this is a solvable problem, at least from a fiscal perspective. I'm frustrated by people just pointing at demographics as if that explains everything and we can't do anything about it.
*It's still the case that the last 12 months are the most expensive of our lives, regardless of what age they come. That's a flat cost that we can't do much about, though you only die once.
And that being fit helps reduce the recovery time from serious illnesses and operations.
I’ve got a range of oldies in the family. The difference between those who did a bit of exercise constantly and kept active and the “we’ve retired, so not doing much is expected” ones is quite startling.
I mean, I advocate for assisted dying which would help but I advocate for it to alleviate suffering not save cash.
Are you employed? Occupational health services, depending on what you have access to, can also be very helpful.
Very nicely done, and all done by the nurse at the local GP surgery in a few minutes. It wasn't really any worse than having say a Veruka frozen off. Ingrowing toenails before they are removed are horrible by comparison.
My worst pain wise has been bone marrow biopsies - would you like me to explain? They are done wtith things like a sharp, hollow knitting needle inserted into your hip to extract a core as you do from an ice-cap, but about the size of a large match stick.
The one time I needed to see a GP in the past decade (besides checkups) was because of a muscle tear in my back. Putting my daughter in the seat in the trolley, I went one way, she tried to go the other and my muscle tore with an audible snap.
GP referred to as physio (at the same GP surgery) and six weeks later I felt much better. Still feel it sometimes but its not bothering much anymore.
Public health is an area that is particularly poorly funded, but where benefits can be huge. Moving public health to local authorities, who have been ravaged by austerity, has been a huge problem.
None of these things are panaceas, but they could make some difference.
But there's kind of a paradox that those who aren't active tend to die younger, and the bills stop when they die.
Those who are active tend to live longer, accumulating more chronic conditions as they age.
Not if you then live with chronic conditions.
Ten years of life in your 80s or 90s is not the same as ten years of life in your 20s or 30s.
I hope the Israelis smash the Iranian nuclear, industrial and oil refineries into dust unless or until there's regime change.
We've had councillors arguing against cycling in Edinburgh because of the costs of collisions to the NHS - an argument the same individual did not make when it came to 20mph limits for some reason...
It depends what happens in those 10 years. You might be fairly healthy in those 10 years, so the additional health costs are low and the high health costs typically associated with the last year of life are delayed, effectively saving money. Or you might have an expensive chronic condition and have much higher costs.
Generally, healthier, fitter people are putting off death *and* putting off the onset of expensive chronic conditions.
But, yeah, it’s complicated. So, how do we get people into the healthy ageing category? You get papers like this, https://www.embopress.org/doi/full/10.15252/embr.201439518 , arguing along similar lines to you and suggesting that we need to re-focus medical research on preventing or treating age-related conditions rather than on just extending lifespans.
(This could backfire on Bibi and we see the Israeli government fall.)
(Best read out in a nasal uninspring tone)
That leaves the NHS with a decade of extra chronic conditions to handle, it doesn't solve them.
Eliminating chronic conditions would solve a lot of problems, but currently the only way to eliminate many is death and the NHS does all it can to prevent that. The more successful you are at that, the more expensive it gets to keep alive those you've already kept alive.
Agreed with that research. Also research into how to eliminate chronic conditions not just manage them, but that's not easy.
Personally I enjoy the food I eat, but I wouldn't say its for everyone. You need to find something that works for you, that you enjoy.
Its apparently AI, but here is Bart on holiday in South Africa
Compares with a Burger King Vegan Royale ON ITS OWN now costing over £7!
(* I only ever have a McDonalds for "research" purposes)
That is what has happened a lot and is driving costs up.
Cooking for yourself is more affordable than takeaways.
It's looking clear that the Israelis have got over-confident.
As the country as a whole gets richer then pensioners and NHS workers will also want to share in that increase in wealth.
Variety of 'beverage' teas and coffees, too.
That was in the restaurant; conventional lunches available in the bar.
Rachel Reeves is braced for revised forecasts by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) to blow a £20bn hole in her tax and spending plans before the autumn budget.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jun/15/reeves-obr-revised-forecast-tax-spending-plans-20bn-hole-autumn-budget
This headline was amended on 15 June 2025. An earlier version said that Ragù’s postcode was B3, which is in Birmingham, when it is BS3 in Bristol.
https://www.theguardian.com/food/2025/jun/15/ragu-bristol-b3-restaurant-review-grace-dent
Net favourability:
+46 | Tony Blair
+21 | John Major
+19 | Boris Johnson
+18 | Theresa May
-6 | Margaret Thatcer
-6 | David Cameron
-22 | Rishi Sunak
-30 | Gordon Brown
-33 | Keir Starmer
👉 britainelects.com
The only way is down
Looks like Israel are about to learn the golden rule about Trump. If Putin wants something, eventually so does Trump.
Cameron had a minor come back into the 2015 election
Generally time = decline
They've clearly had a lot of help from inside the country and have been very efficient at using it, but the Iranians, for their part, have been preparing for this moment for thirty years. Their chain of command is still functioning and they're inflicting some quite damage.
Plus Trump is not falling in line to the extent expected.
If that dynamic continues, Netanyahu might even end up needing the off-ramp of Trump' s deal, and claim that he's won by setting back their nuclear programme and military.
https://www.reddit.com/r/YAPms/comments/1jgzi6v/british_prime_minister_net_approval_ratings_since/
(No source, but it looks like it's from Mark Pack's database.)
What's interesting is how hard-to-please Mr and Mrs Voter have become in recent decades. Even failures from the 50s to the 70s tended to have net positive scores.
The whole dimension of the conflict will change if the US gets drawn in too, which I would suggest is more likely than not, eventually.
However there's little reason why Israel can't continue to do the right thing as they are doing by themselves.
Rather glossing over the more pertinent point that he won the first.
Interesting.
It has no VI but 'would consider voting for' at
31% Labour
28% Tory
34% Reform
21% LD
16% Green
5% SNP
The sub samples (due klaxon alert as required) are illuminating. Wales should absolutely terrify Labour..........
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3080q893z3o
My own miracle cure was this exercise that takes just a few seconds:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JR1rtQ-PF38
Basically, sit down, cross your leg and lean gently forwards for a few seconds.
But there are about a zillion different causes of back pain so YMMV. As a vaguely on-topic link, Stephen Ward of the Profumo Affair made his fortune fixing the backs of the rich, famous and well-connected.
https://bsky.app/profile/bubbaprog.lol/post/3lrm4ekho5k2b
How many people across the Middle East is Bibi allowed to kill since 0ctober 7th 2023? How many deaths has he sanctioned since he became Prime Minister? He will go down in history and one of the World's greatest monsters.
Now before you charge me with anti-Semitism, my concern is for Netanyahu's morality. I am not questioning Judaism or the right for Israel to exist.
And I would prefer they taxes consumption and property than work.