Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why did 250k Britons die sooner than expected?

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 204 posts

Re: Why did 250k Britons die sooner than expected?

#151

Post by aix1 »

londons_explore wrote: post #35

In my district in the UK, there were occasions when average wait times for an ambulance for a Category 1 incident (eg. person not breathing) reached 48 hours last month. The target is 90% of patients reached in 15 minutes. Yet the reality is the average wait was 48 hours. I can't see any way that kind of thing isn't contributing to a shorter life expectancy.

> In my district in the UK, there were occasions when average wait times for an ambulance for a Category 1 incident (eg. person not breathing) reached 48 hours last month.

This is a pretty shocking number. Where can I read more about this?

Re: Why did 250k Britons die sooner than expected?

#152

Post by growse »

0xy wrote: post #89
58028641 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just cause the dollar amount is increasing doesn't mean it isn't being defunded. You have to account for inflation, population size, and population age distribution.

NHS spending has increased by over 6.5% yearly since 2010, with even more massive increases planned for 2024-25. Want a comparison? France's healthcare spending increased 0.3% yearly in the same timeframe. The UK is outpacing France's spending increases by 2,066%. The spending argument is made from political propaganda, not from fact.

You can increase more than others and still be funded less than them. The EU on average still spends dramatically more per capita on health.

The spending argument is nuanced and complex. Declaring that it's "not from fact" just reveals your partisan leanings.

https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/charts-and-infogr...

Re: Why did 250k Britons die sooner than expected?

#153

Post by actuator »

mbo wrote: post #14
actuator wrote: post #7

A bit offtopic, but does anyone who has worked with media organisations in the past know, how much an individual developer time is spent in creating an interactive feature report like this? Also, are there publishing tools that allow creation by something like drag and drop in the CMS or is it often custom frontend code?

The Australian public broadcaster open sources all its infrastructure for their interactive features: https://github.com/abcnews It's all very bespoke.

Thanks. Will take a look.

Re: Why did 250k Britons die sooner than expected?

#154

Post by bluepizza »

HWR_14 wrote: post #101
bluepizza wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article doesn't mention it because the trend began way before Brexit was concluded.

Before Brexit was concluded, a lot of EU citizens in the UK started leaving. Why wait until the turmoil kicks you out when you can be proactive. Just like people start interviewing for a new job before the old company finishes going bankrupt.

The trend started 3 years before the vote happened.

Re: Why did 250k Britons die sooner than expected?

#155

Post by ZeroGravitas »

krysp wrote: post #4
was_a_dev wrote: post #2

It is well-known that the austerity ushered in by Cameron's new Conservative goverment heavily contributed to excess deaths. After a decade of continued underfunding of public services, leading to a collapsed social and health service, you realise the question really isn't that deep

Well known anecdotally perhaps, but this is the first time I've seen a major publication link the two issues (possibly I don't read enough of the news). Hopefully we see more like this.

Financial Times called it out recently too, in surprisingly clear terms:

https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1606223922474627073

> Britain’s grim winter of strikes, falling incomes and a worsening NHS crisis is not some unfortunate series of events

> It’s the inevitable result of a decade of Tory austerity that steadily weakened the state’s capacity to respond to shocks

Re: Why did 250k Britons die sooner than expected?

#156

Post by oigursh »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #87
anonporridge wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easier for people to believe in a personified evil with a face that can be hated and a body that can be killed than it is for them to accept that many of our biggest problems are intractable hyperobjects which are simultaneously nobody's fault and everybody's fault.

I do not think anyone would have a problem with intractable hyperobjects if the King, Prime Minister, and others also had to wait in the same queue at the emergency room. What people have a problem with is that the problem seems to be tractable for some, and not for others, and whether or not those “some” are worthy of it.

If the wealthy and connected were forced to access the same services as the rest of us, the services would be better.

Re: Why did 250k Britons die sooner than expected?

#157

Post by Am4TIfIsER0ppos »

HWR_14 wrote: post #99
0xy wrote: post #93

The UK's doctors and nurses are essentially slaves compared to their US counterparts. They make a quarter of the pay or less for equivalent work. When your healthcare strategy is "just employ slaves so we can have free healthcare" of course people will die.

Alternatively, I don't understand why we don't have more doctors in the US and drive down prices. I mean, I understand why the AMA wants that, but doctor-work doesn't seem that hard and I have no idea why they need to make mid-six figures. I could be very wrong, of course, but it seems like most people I went to school with are capable of most doctor work.

> I understand why the AMA wants that

Did you leave a "not" out of this part?

Re: Why did 250k Britons die sooner than expected?

#158

Post by refurb »

58028641 wrote: post #85
nradov wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK NHS budget has been steadily increasing. You can't plausibly claim that the Tories have defunded public health over decades. Some might claim that the funding should have increased at a faster rate, but there are limits to what any society can spend on healthcare. https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/nhs-...

Just cause the dollar amount is increasing doesn't mean it isn't being defunded. You have to account for inflation, population size, and population age distribution.

You’d be changing the definition of “defunded” then. It means “less money”.

Re: Why did 250k Britons die sooner than expected?

#159

Post by refurb »

Retric wrote: post #95
nradov wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crime rates are a city by city and neighborhood by neighborhood issue. Most of the USA is very safe; my city has zero murders most years. The statistics are thrown off by a few neighborhoods in a few cities like Chicago that have degenerated into third-world war zones. While that's a terrible situation and we need to fix it, most HN users can easily avoid those places.

Even the “safe” parts of the US aren’t all that safe. Ontario which includes Canada’s largest city and 38% of the population had a lower average murder rate between 2016 and 2020 than every single US state but New Hampshire. Quebec population 8.5 million is significantly lower. These statistics aren’t completely equivalent due to various factors, but it’s close enough for reasonable comparisons.

You’re comparing a rate - murders over population, of a province with a vast rural population with few murders to US cities where murders are concentrated.

Edit: I'm an idiot and can't read.

Re: Why did 250k Britons die sooner than expected?

#160

Post by Retric »

refurb wrote: post #159
Retric wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even the “safe” parts of the US aren’t all that safe. Ontario which includes Canada’s largest city and 38% of the population had a lower average murder rate between 2016 and 2020 than every single US state but New Hampshire. Quebec population 8.5 million is significantly lower. These statistics aren’t completely equivalent due to various factors, but it’s close enough for reasonable comparisons.

You’re comparing a rate - murders over population, of a province with a vast rural population with few murders to US cities where murders are concentrated. Edit: I'm an idiot and can't read.

I am comparing states with provinces.

The most populous “city” in Wyoming is Cheyenne with 63,957 people. Ontario meanwhile includes Toronto population City:2,794,356, Metro Area: 6,202,225.

Yet, your more likely to be murdered in Wyoming.

Post reply on HN