Live data from Hacker News

Why did 250k Britons die sooner than expected?

economist.com

171–180 of 204 posts

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

#171

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.

Sorry, but this is just wrong. There is absolutely no way that an average wait time - usually 7 minutes - for a cat 1 call will be 48 hours. Unless someone made a heinous mistake and somehow forgot a call one time, it never "on occasion" goes to 48 hours. As soon as it goes over a relatively small number (30 mins odd) they start bringing in other districts to help.

Are you really telling me that we just decided to let people die for 2 days straight? Got any proof on that one?

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

#172
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Probably. I mean the AMA wants there to be few but very highly paid doctors.

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

#173
post #166
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chicago's homicide rate isn't that high once you use per-capita numbers.

Chicago and Toronto are roughly the same size, but per-capta Chicago has ~10x as many murders. That’s fucked up.

If they are per-capita then you don't need similarly sized cities. I was comparing Chicago's per capita numbers to the US's

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

#174
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you saying exactly? How much should spending have increased to account for inflation, population size, and population age distribution? Please give a specific number. Would that be a good use of limited resources?

Not exactly what you ask for, but "the NHS budget has traditionally risen by an average of 4% above inflation each year." ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-64190440 )

Obviously NHS funding can't continue growing faster than inflation forever. That is unsustainable. At some point the NHS would consume the entire government budget.

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

#175
post #173
post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chicago and Toronto are roughly the same size, but per-capta Chicago has ~10x as many murders. That’s fucked up.

If they are per-capita then you don't need similarly sized cities. I was comparing Chicago's per capita numbers to the US's

Chicago’s per capita murder rate is much higher than the US.

In 2021 Chicago had 29.6 per 100k people where the US averaged 6.5 per 100k in 2020. The 4 least dangerous districts in Chicago are actually slightly below to the US’s average murder rate. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Ander%20testi...

The point of roughly equivalent sized cities is small entities can be much larger statistical outliers. A small city can go from a higher rate than Chicago one year to 0 the next year. Meanwhile Chicago’s numbers don’t really change with a single mass shooting etc.

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

#176
post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

How about a search engine: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ambulance+wait+times+uk&ia=web E.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/20/world/europe/uk-ambulance... The waits are crazy long because hospitals are full, so the ambulances end up outside the hospital entrance for a long time, waiting for a free bed for their patient/passenger.

Your linked page has no reference to wait times on category 1 calls exceeding 48 hours (nor anything close). Neither do any of the results I clicked through on the _extremely_ helpful SERP link.

I did find this page[0] which says, referring to category 1 calls:

> In December 2022, the response time crossed 10 minutes, the worst performance on record.

So it certainly sounds like an _average_ wait of 48 hours for a category 1 call is not at all grounded in reality.

[0]: https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/resource/ambulance-response...

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

#177
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You pick one thing (or a few) and do it well. Agricultural exports (billions): US $134.8, Brazil $87.2, Netherlands $81.3, China $72.7 Population (millions): US 331.9, Brazil 214.3, Netherlands 17.5, China 1412 Size (km²) US 9834000, Brazil 8516000, Netherlands 41850, China 9597000

That seems like a good counterpoint. Let me read what gives the Dutch that advantage.

Very intensive environmentally unsustainable industrial farming

https://dutchreview.com/culture/dutch-nitrogen-crisis-explai...

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

#178
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm considering leaving the country as soon as I'm able to also. The thing that concerns me the most is that I believe many people here have a fundamental misunderstanding of challenges we face as a country, and our class divide seems to contribute to this misunderstanding. As someone who comes from a poorer background and now socialises with people who are fairly affluent it's always surprising to me to see how much…

Could you give some examples of the misunderstandings you see between rich and poor in the UK?

The mains two would be that in general the upper-middle class and wealthy don't understand the financial incentives of the poor. And the poor tend to believe everyone with a job earning more than £35,000 is "rich" and needs to be aggressively taxed.

For example, when I tell people that most of my family choose to have children in their early twenties as a means to move out of their parents homes those who are wealthier simply don't believe me. They simple don't understand that if you have no skills and your family have no money, you're not going to afford a house no matter how hard you work as a cleaner or cashier.

So this means that most people in my family who live in nice houses are actually unemployed, and typically single mothers. While those who work generally live with their parents or in small run down flats.

Further, it's very common for these people to be getting so much support from the government from various disability allowances, child support, and benefits such as support for energy bills, free school meals, disability cars, etc, that they actually can't get a job because doing so would dramatically reduce their standard of living. So for example I know a single mum with 5 kids who is a drug addict. A large part of the problem is that she has nothing going on in her life so she just sleeps all day and then does drugs in the evening. My girlfriend tried to help her get a job a few years back but the adviser told it wouldn't be financially sensible decision given how much she'd lose in benefits income and support. And well, now she's a prostitute because it's cash in hand and she recently been in hospital for liver failure... I could give you countless stories like this from my family.

But the point I'm trying to make is that if you're poor and working class you won't be able to ever afford a house in the UK. So instead you're basically forced into claiming benefits, and to improve your standard of living you need to learn how to exploit the system while doing illegal things on the side. The thing you're not incentivised to do is work.

On the other side of the coin my family believe myself and those social with are "posh", because we earn say £50,000 - £100,000 and most of us can just about afford a 2-3 bed home by 30. I know a women who was impressed by a guy she was dating recently because he had a £38k income and was a manager in a retail store. I mean, that's not a bad income, but if you're middle class you would never consider that wealthy...

I'm pretty lucky because despite going to crappy schools I was autistic enough to be good at computer stuff which allowed me to break the cycle. But even I'm in no position to afford children right now. And realistically me and my girlfriend only have 5 or so years to get our finances in order if we want to have them. So in all likelihood I will never be in a position to afford children and I have above average income.

The truth is a household income of around £60,000 in the UK won't go that far after tax and expenses if you're living in a major city. You might get to a good place eventually, but you'll never afford a family before you turn 30. You might afford it by maybe 35-40, but this assumes you make a lot of good decisions (or have wealthy parents).

So I get quite upset when my family tell me I'm wealthy because I envy their lives so much. I want children like them yet I know that I'll probably never have them. Instead I work long hours and I'm worrying constantly about budgeting. So given what I see, when I hear cries to raise taxes on people like myself to give even more to people on benefits it pisses me off a little.

My controversial take on this is that we should not be giving pensioners non means tested benefits. The majority of our tax goes to free health care, state pensions and various other state benefits for wealthy elderly retirees. And almost none of this support is means tested. Instead we should be encouraging retirees to sell their homes and pay for their own retirements and care. This would take tax burden away from the young while increasing the supply of houses for people to start their own families. It would also be a fairer system because less people would inherit wealth from the elderly, and instead it would encourage building it. I think we should also consider a lower tax rate for people in their 20-30s and for working parents. This will allow the young to build wealth to get a good start and support families on their own.

Obviously, in an ideal world there would be enough money for everyone, but there isn't. Therefore it makes little sense that most tax revenue gets redistributed to wealthy retirees at the cost of the young and poorest in society. We probably also need to look at improving the incentive structure of the benefits system. Generally I'm fine with the benefits people receive today, but we could probably do a better job at ensuring people don't feel like it's ever a bad financial decision to get a job or earn more because they'll be worse off. My guess is that this will also reduce crime, because again, part of the reason people in my family sell drugs or get involve in prostitution is because of how benefits are means tested.

Of course, none of this is politically feasible given voting demographics and what seems to a popular opinion in the UK that the solution to our problems is even higher taxes and even more benefits... And perhaps I have the wrong solutions, but I'm sure as hell that the solution isn't raising taxes and giving retirees better health care, larger pensions, more support for energy bills, etc.

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

#179
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t get why people are even bothering to call at this point, surely you’re better off calling a taxi or driving the person yourself and then just carrying them into the ER and shouting for help. They’re in the building that way and they can’t just ignore a collapsed person in the middle of a hallway

There isn’t much point in going to A&E - there are no doctors. I amputated my fingertip (halfway up the final joint, with a blunt instrument - crushed the thing off) a week ago and was told to go home and use glue and tape to close the wound, and to throw away the tip. I’ve been dunking it in meths to sterilise and dry it. They literally did nothing. Contrast to Latvia where I bisected my thumb with an axe and they p…

Username checks out. You're in decent company, I believe Randolph Fiennes also self amputated his fingertip after it got frostbite on one of his expeditions.

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

#180
post #158

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.

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

then the term should be "underfunded".
Post reply on HN