Coronavirus and the impact of Lockdown policy
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 SW19 CPFC  Addiscombe West 17 Jan 23 7.06pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
We just have to differ I'm afraid. Yes, the free will question is always an interesting one.....While the above remains my default position I myself recognise that in certain areas the balance changes. I understand that some would also disagree with me on that. Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Jan 2023 6.15pm) I think sometimes it’s easy to give the general population too much credit. As I’ve said before the human hive mind is a disaster. The odd bit of rough steerage here and there is required, in my view, to maintain order and to prevent things going sideways. In a perfect world of sensible individuals healthy advice would be enough. People don’t always know what they want, sometimes they need someone to tell them. Just because you’re an adult doesn’t mean you’re immune to making childlike impulsive or irrational decisions. If we were then no one would smoke or drink. Junk food, drinking etc are in the same ballpark but not directly relatable. Junk food may not be a requirement but we’re hardwired to go for high calorie foods - studies have proven junk food affects the brain / and is wired to crave it. If junk food didn’t exist we’d still have the same cravings. I’d also suggest that out of spending £10 on junk food a week vs smoking a pack of 20 a week for health reasons you’d much rather do the former. It’s also far more addictive. Orders of magnitude worse. You also wouldn’t crave it if it didn’t exist. It’s not hardwired into us to crave smoking. A similar argument can be made regarding alcohol vs smoking. Re. Origins of smoking yes, to expand, my original point was the choice to smoke existed more at that point - once the corporates took over and sold it as a social aspiration that balance of choice went out the window. I work in that world so I’m fully aware of how semiotics and behavioural mechanics are used to ever increasing effect to generate sales and profit. I find it amusing and extremely ironic that something sold in to exploit and bend free will and choice and change behaviour for profit (artificially) is now being used as an example of others wanting to encroach on it by taking it away.
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
Teddy Eagle  17 Jan 23 8.39pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
I think sometimes it’s easy to give the general population too much credit. As I’ve said before the human hive mind is a disaster. The odd bit of rough steerage here and there is required, in my view, to maintain order and to prevent things going sideways. In a perfect world of sensible individuals healthy advice would be enough. People don’t always know what they want, sometimes they need someone to tell them. Just because you’re an adult doesn’t mean you’re immune to making childlike impulsive or irrational decisions. If we were then no one would smoke or drink. Junk food, drinking etc are in the same ballpark but not directly relatable. Junk food may not be a requirement but we’re hardwired to go for high calorie foods - studies have proven junk food affects the brain / and is wired to crave it. If junk food didn’t exist we’d still have the same cravings. I’d also suggest that out of spending £10 on junk food a week vs smoking a pack of 20 a week for health reasons you’d much rather do the former. It’s also far more addictive. Orders of magnitude worse. You also wouldn’t crave it if it didn’t exist. It’s not hardwired into us to crave smoking. A similar argument can be made regarding alcohol vs smoking. Re. Origins of smoking yes, to expand, my original point was the choice to smoke existed more at that point - once the corporates took over and sold it as a social aspiration that balance of choice went out the window. I work in that world so I’m fully aware of how semiotics and behavioural mechanics are used to ever increasing effect to generate sales and profit. I find it amusing and extremely ironic that something sold in to exploit and bend free will and choice and change behaviour for profit (artificially) is now being used as an example of others wanting to encroach on it by taking it away. I don't think it was that complicated. I started smoking in the mid-70s and it was just a natural thing which most people did. Not everyone obviously but the majority of people I knew. School dinner money was 20p which was enough to buy 10 Weights so cost wasn't an issue.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
cryrst Online  The garden of England 17 Jan 23 9.29pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by ASCPFC
NHS should be contribution based. I.e you've paid national insurance for five years - you get five years NHS cover. Anybody new to the UK should be required to have private health insurance of a certain standard. As to the smoker debate, it could be far more nuanced. The NHS could perhaps treat those who have a decent chance of survival, once, then if they still smoke, not again. The other part of this: I don't really like the treatment of really, really old people for terminal cancers. My Mum was treated poorly and then very well, but she was always going to die at 83 from stomach cancer. The treatment prolonged a poor standard of living. She certainly wanted to die months/ maybe a year or two before she did. Sadly this explains some of the reasons why the NHS fails.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 17 Jan 23 10.31pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
I don't think it was that complicated. I started smoking in the mid-70s and it was just a natural thing which most people did. Not everyone obviously but the majority of people I knew. School dinner money was 20p which was enough to buy 10 Weights so cost wasn't an issue. ‘It was a natural thing which most people did’ proves my point. Tobacco companies knew about the issues with their product as early as the fifties. They suppressed and fought this for as long as possible, much like fossil fuel companies, for the sake of profit. It wouldn’t have seemed natural in the 70s if it had been treated as seriously as it is now after that first report had been published. It wasn’t, and the ‘natural’ cultural norm persisted decades longer than it ever should have done. You might not think it nuanced or complex but as per usual it is exactly that.
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 17 Jan 23 10.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by cryrst
Sadly this explains some of the reasons why the NHS fails. I agree with the logic. Moral and ethical minefield though. And ultimately you’re right, most people who smoke drink and eat dross will pay the price. There are a few that get lucky though - no matter how much they try their body holds out. Tend to look like s*** though, about 30 years older with the wrinkled skin and sunken eyes of a severely malnourished, dehydrated elephant.
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Stoke sub normal 17 Jan 23 10.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
This is based on old data, and incorrect. A 2009 study indicated that this might be the case... it's now 2023 and the latest research indicates that the economic cost is about 17bn, vs tax receipts of 10bn. What you're also not taking into account is where that 10bn would go if smoking was banned. Into a whole range of other goods and services. This would also mean more people that have been unlucky with ailments rather than deliberately and willingly creating them being cared for by the NHS. This latest research (£17bn cost to society) was conducted by ASH (Action on Smoking and Health). There is a vested interest there. I don't dispute the amount quoted, but the way it is presented is misleading. £13.17bn is due to lost productivity. Which means time off work due to illness or underproductive time at work while ill. This is in tune with the amount of people who don't smoke and are underproductive. In fact, it might be argued that smokers are more productive if you look into it deeper. Six million smokers in the UK. (ASH. Scroll to references 1) [Link] Thirty million workers. (ONS. Scroll to 2. Main Points) [Link] Seventy seven billion pounds (£77bn) lost to sick staff productivity in 2018, possibly slightly more or less now. [Link] 30m / 5 = 6m A fifth of workers smoke. They cost £13bn in productivity loss due to sickness/illness. £77bn / 5 = £15.4bn Is the cost of lost productivity due to sickness/illness in the total workforce. Even if the figures from 2018 are off, there is still little to no difference in productivity loss between smokers and non-smokers. The main difference is that the £2.4bn cost to the NHS is covered, and adds to their funds, by the extra tax revenue gathered from tobacco products. If all smoking sales stop, the NHS save £2.4bn, but lose £10bn. I'm an ex-smoker (smoked 30y+) and recommend everyone to quit. It is bad for you and others. Plus... you stink! Edited by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 (17 Jan 2023 10.56pm)
Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Teddy Eagle 17 Jan 23 10.56pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
‘It was a natural thing which most people did’ proves my point. Tobacco companies knew about the issues with their product as early as the fifties. They suppressed and fought this for as long as possible, much like fossil fuel companies, for the sake of profit. It wouldn’t have seemed natural in the 70s if it had been treated as seriously as it is now after that first report had been published. It wasn’t, and the ‘natural’ cultural norm persisted decades longer than it ever should have done. You might not think it nuanced or complex but as per usual it is exactly that. Do you honestly think no one was aware of the health risks? They were called coffin nails for a reason.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 18 Jan 23 4.11am |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
I think sometimes it’s easy to give the general population too much credit. As I’ve said before the human hive mind is a disaster. The odd bit of rough steerage here and there is required, in my view, to maintain order and to prevent things going sideways. In a perfect world of sensible individuals healthy advice would be enough. People don’t always know what they want, sometimes they need someone to tell them. Just because you’re an adult doesn’t mean you’re immune to making childlike impulsive or irrational decisions. If we were then no one would smoke or drink. I think the quite dangerous thing that you are supporting here is the rather communistic idea that the state is permanently paternalistic and benevolent and should be given power to control people's lives up to individual choices. Personally I think in most cases the use of that kind of power has to be limited. I see not the role of government to be your 'safety nanny' who tucks you in at night but as the entity that is meant to work towards increasing the standard of living for all British, ensuring that the jobs within its economy enable that. Also, let's not forget that by making fags very expensive all you are really doing, in effect, is banning them for poor people, as the wealth class will be unaffected. What you are in effect supporting is giving more power to the state and taking it away from the individual. As I said before treating adults like children because you believe the state is more intelligent. I wouldn't argue with you that on average, in a properly working meritocracy, the people working at high levels for the state are more intelligent. However, I would argue with you that this doesn't automatically translate into policies that 'rise all boats' and improve their lives. Any look at the economic and social metrics can prove this. I would argue that in many respects the state is not run paternalistically and never has been. It is run by elites for the elites, more today than say 70-50 years ago, as today they just lie about it more. So I'm hardly going to agree with an argument that says they should control people's lives over the individual's own decisions. Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
Junk food, drinking etc are in the same ballpark but not directly relatable. Junk food may not be a requirement but we’re hardwired to go for high calorie foods - studies have proven junk food affects the brain / and is wired to crave it. If junk food didn’t exist we’d still have the same cravings. I’d also suggest that out of spending £10 on junk food a week vs smoking a pack of 20 a week for health reasons you’d much rather do the former. It’s also far more addictive. Orders of magnitude worse. You also wouldn’t crave it if it didn’t exist. It’s not hardwired into us to crave smoking. A similar argument can be made regarding alcohol vs smoking. Re. Origins of smoking yes, to expand, my original point was the choice to smoke existed more at that point - once the corporates took over and sold it as a social aspiration that balance of choice went out the window. I work in that world so I’m fully aware of how semiotics and behavioural mechanics are used to ever increasing effect to generate sales and profit. I find it amusing and extremely ironic that something sold in to exploit and bend free will and choice and change behaviour for profit (artificially) is now being used as an example of others wanting to encroach on it by taking it away. I hear this said rather a lot, that people's brains are 'hardwired' because some study said so. People blame this for just about any vice going. While I definitely recognise that people are genetically predisposed to actions I also recognise that this is also often used as an excuse. Unless someone is low IQ 90 or less then I just feel that, in a 'free society' and in most circumstances, advice is the better tool over compulsion. As for citing studies for proof....Well, studies often come out cited as being from 'experts' that end up contradicting each other. [Tweet Link]
Personally rather than using studies as an authority (who funds them is very important) I suggest that common sense should also be a factor. I would agree with you that the inherent profit motive means that obviously capitalism, isn't about improving everybody's life and instead its benefits are indirect. However, personally I see government as little different. Like government their power to influence people should be limited. However, unlike government they don't get the power to effectively force people into actions.....they may lie but ultimately the decision is made by the consumer. They don't have the threat of force that lies behind refusing the government. Edited by Stirlingsays (18 Jan 2023 4.27am)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 18 Jan 23 8.20am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
I hear this said rather a lot, that people's brains are 'hardwired' because some study said so. People blame this for just about any vice going. While I definitely recognise that people are genetically predisposed to actions I also recognise that this is also often used as an excuse. Unless someone is low IQ 90 or less then I just feel that, in a 'free society' and in most circumstances, advice is the better tool over compulsion. As for citing studies for proof....Well, studies often come out cited as being from 'experts' that end up contradicting each other. [Tweet Link]
Personally rather than using studies as an authority (who funds them is very important) I suggest that common sense should also be a factor. I would agree with you that the inherent profit motive means that obviously capitalism, isn't about improving everybody's life and instead its benefits are indirect. However, personally I see government as little different. Like government their power to influence people should be limited. However, unlike government they don't get the power to effectively force people into actions.....they may lie but ultimately the decision is made by the consumer. They don't have the threat of force that lies behind refusing the government. Edited by Stirlingsays (18 Jan 2023 4.27am) It’s a big leap from banning / restricting something that has zero benefit to complete communism or an authoritarian state. In this case whether poor people can afford them not is irrelevant, as the positive of people being unable to afford them is far greater than the negative of them not being able to purchase them at all. My view is it should be a balance of critical intervention and freedom - too much of either is a bad thing. I view smoking as a critical intervention point. Most governments and its citizens appear to agree… I don’t see riots because cigarettes are being phased out. I also don’t think you can argue against the fact we naturally crave food whereas we don’t naturally crave cigarettes. Natural vs artificial construct. As for someone that is predisposed towards addiction - in that case the vice becomes irrelevant. As for the high calorie / fat craving there are plenty of studies on this. Yes all studies are funded but as long as you’re aware of this you can only go on what you have reviewed regarding the information that is out there and apply common sense to that. Rejecting all research because the daily Mail likes to play opposites for clicks or because they’re all funded is nonsensical (there was a time where it used to have an x causes cancer article daily). I don’t view government as some sort of utopian father figure, far from it. Sometimes decisions are made that benefit us though, as much as you might not want to stomach it. In other words, it’s not always dystopian and terrible. Edited by SW19 CPFC (18 Jan 2023 8.21am)
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 18 Jan 23 10.44am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64
This latest research (£17bn cost to society) was conducted by ASH (Action on Smoking and Health). There is a vested interest there. I don't dispute the amount quoted, but the way it is presented is misleading. £13.17bn is due to lost productivity. Which means time off work due to illness or underproductive time at work while ill. This is in tune with the amount of people who don't smoke and are underproductive. In fact, it might be argued that smokers are more productive if you look into it deeper. Six million smokers in the UK. (ASH. Scroll to references 1) [Link] Thirty million workers. (ONS. Scroll to 2. Main Points) [Link] Seventy seven billion pounds (£77bn) lost to sick staff productivity in 2018, possibly slightly more or less now. [Link] 30m / 5 = 6m A fifth of workers smoke. They cost £13bn in productivity loss due to sickness/illness. £77bn / 5 = £15.4bn Is the cost of lost productivity due to sickness/illness in the total workforce. Even if the figures from 2018 are off, there is still little to no difference in productivity loss between smokers and non-smokers. The main difference is that the £2.4bn cost to the NHS is covered, and adds to their funds, by the extra tax revenue gathered from tobacco products. If all smoking sales stop, the NHS save £2.4bn, but lose £10bn. I'm an ex-smoker (smoked 30y+) and recommend everyone to quit. It is bad for you and others. Plus... you stink! Edited by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 (17 Jan 2023 10.56pm) This is a useful take, as it does actually expose a pretty big flaw in the data that I'd overlooked, assuming it hasn't been taken into account. What’s missing is allowance for the increased risk of illness vs non smokers. Conservatively maybe you could peg this at 50% (some studies have it at 60+ for one cigarette a day). Accounting for a taper up in risk from 18-65 is important so probably less, at a guess, 30-40%? The ASH study appears to treat all workers as the same in terms of risk of sickness regardless of whether they smoke or not which is lazy and a pretty big flaw. It's also odd that they haven't attempted to factor this in. Based on the extensive research around smoking and risk of illness to smokers vs non smokers it’s highly likely that smokers do actually get sick more often and more seriously. Therefore they must contribute far more to the total 77bn figure (or 69bn if you’re looking at the 18+ working age portion of the workforce) than the 13bn quoted in the ASH data. If I had the time I’d try to work this out properly, but for sake of argument... if the 18+ working age contingent are more likely to be sick more often and more severely then that does change the landscape pretty significantly. Complete guess but based on those figures instead of a 13bn contribution that doesn't take into account elevated sickness risk it's probably at least 20bn if you do take it into account. Certainly a good deal more than the 13bn figure anyways. Logically, and based on extensive, widely available historical research it would make sense that smokers within the workforce are disproportionally responsible for more of that 69bn than the non smokers. Also as pointed out earlier in the thread the 2.4bn vs 10bn NHS point is not a fair comparison as rather obviously the 10bn tax receipts do not all go directly to the NHS. In fact you could probably work out the percentage of that 10bn that does end up going towards the NHS if total tax receipts are 714bn, the NHS gets 180bn funding per year and total government spending for 2022 was 1100bn. • Smoking related tax receipts (10bn) are about 1.4% of all receipts and 0.9% of total spend Summary – Only 1.6bn of the 10bn smoking related receipts go back into the NHS vs the suggested 2.4bn cost. The remaining 8.4bn is easily cancelled out by the no doubt much higher than 13bn illness/productivity figure above. Then there's other things like other services than the NHS being drained by smoking related ailments, family care costs, financial and time sacrifices as a result of that and so on. The fact is when it comes to smoking as a whole (not just the NHS) the negatives outweigh the positives by a large margin. Note - my maths may be off here so feel free to pick valid holes Edited by SW19 CPFC (18 Jan 2023 1.31pm)
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Stoke sub normal 19 Jan 23 12.32am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
This is a useful take, as it does actually expose a pretty big flaw in the data that I'd overlooked, assuming it hasn't been taken into account. What’s missing is allowance for the increased risk of illness vs non smokers. Conservatively maybe you could peg this at 50% (some studies have it at 60+ for one cigarette a day). Accounting for a taper up in risk from 18-65 is important so probably less, at a guess, 30-40%? The ASH study appears to treat all workers as the same in terms of risk of sickness regardless of whether they smoke or not which is lazy and a pretty big flaw. It's also odd that they haven't attempted to factor this in. Based on the extensive research around smoking and risk of illness to smokers vs non smokers it’s highly likely that smokers do actually get sick more often and more seriously. Therefore they must contribute far more to the total 77bn figure (or 69bn if you’re looking at the 18+ working age portion of the workforce) than the 13bn quoted in the ASH data. If I had the time I’d try to work this out properly, but for sake of argument... if the 18+ working age contingent are more likely to be sick more often and more severely then that does change the landscape pretty significantly. Complete guess but based on those figures instead of a 13bn contribution that doesn't take into account elevated sickness risk it's probably at least 20bn if you do take it into account. Certainly a good deal more than the 13bn figure anyways. Logically, and based on extensive, widely available historical research it would make sense that smokers within the workforce are disproportionally responsible for more of that 69bn than the non smokers. Also as pointed out earlier in the thread the 2.4bn vs 10bn NHS point is not a fair comparison as rather obviously the 10bn tax receipts do not all go directly to the NHS. In fact you could probably work out the percentage of that 10bn that does end up going towards the NHS if total tax receipts are 714bn, the NHS gets 180bn funding per year and total government spending for 2022 was 1100bn. • Smoking related tax receipts (10bn) are about 1.4% of all receipts and 0.9% of total spend Summary – Only 1.6bn of the 10bn smoking related receipts go back into the NHS vs the suggested 2.4bn cost. The remaining 8.4bn is easily cancelled out by the no doubt much higher than 13bn illness/productivity figure above. Then there's other things like other services than the NHS being drained by smoking related ailments, family care costs, financial and time sacrifices as a result of that and so on. The fact is when it comes to smoking as a whole (not just the NHS) the negatives outweigh the positives by a large margin. Note - my maths may be off here so feel free to pick valid holes Edited by SW19 CPFC (18 Jan 2023 1.31pm) In this one paragraph you use "risk (x2), could, probably, at a guess". All pretty loose terms. I'm not condoning smoking, or saying that it has any benefits, but if you want to argue the costs, don't estimate them. If you post information to prove your point which turns out to be flawed, please don't try to correct that with false guesswork. Plenty of other holes here too, but as you have a superiority complex, I really can't be bothered to engage.
Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 19 Jan 23 7.38am |
|
|---|---|
|
Brand continues to do good work on the situation around the vaccines.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.