"Professor Sir Michael Marmot, of the UCL Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, says:
'In the US and England there were remarkably similar socioeconomic differences in health: the less education and income people had, the worse their health. We cannot blame either bad lifestyle or inadequate medical care as the main culprits in these socioeconomic differences in health. We should look for explanation to the circumstances in which people live and work.'
The study shows that the differences in health between the two nations are not fully explained by lifestyle factors, such as smoking, drinking, excess weight and poor exercise. Smoking behaviour is similar in the two nations, while excessive drinking of alcohol is more common in England. Obesity is more common in the US, and Americans get less exercise, according to the study. But researchers estimate that those factors together account for less than half of the differences. Nor are the differences accounted for by higher rates of black and Hispanic population in the US, who are groups known to have poorer health, since these are excluded from the study."
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=42692
So are all these really poorly high-earning American CEOs suffering from over-generous welfare payments?
Originally posted by XanthosNZYes, but the figures are so close, I'd guess this is the story he's talking about.
That compares Calton (not all of East Glasgow) to Iraq (not Baghdad).
Sensationalist and dodgy story but it's splitting hairs saying he said about East Glasgow and Baghdad. Besides, his point would still stand (or not).
Originally posted by VargThe fact that the article compares one tiny area (Calton) to an entire country makes the point even further laboured. It just isn't statistically relevant to make such a comparison.
Yes, but the figures are so close, I'd guess this is the story he's talking about.
Sensationalist and dodgy story but it's splitting hairs saying he said about East Glasgow and Baghdad. Besides, his point would still stand (or not).
EDIT: Parallel question, what is the average education level of these areas? What industries do the workers there work in?
Originally posted by Amaurotewell, if it's fundamentally the lowerclass way, why bother trying to change it, or to fund it?
Most working-class people have a limited range of choices when it comes to their leisure time for all sorts of reasons, some culturally-defined, some environmentally, some economically (the price and accessibility of healthy foodstuffs) - just as most middle-class people have a notoriously limited dress sense not because they can't afford it, but because we ...[text shortened]... inally uncool is more than just an economic decision, it's fundamentally the middle class way.
and why expect any change if, after 80 years of the New Deal and 40 years of The Great Society, it's still a topic of discussion?
reference: try looking at some of kirksey's posts on appalachia.
Originally posted by XanthosNZThe story, and Nargaguna's quote was essentially that an area of a supposedly civilised, first world country has a lower life expectancy than somewhere which is generally considered to be rather dangerous.
The fact that the article compares one tiny area (Calton) to an entire country makes the point even further laboured. It just isn't statistically relevant to make such a comparison.
EDIT: Parallel question, what is the average education level of these areas? What industries do the workers there work in?
The original story might be a bit dodgy, as you say, but that Nargaguna said "East Glasgow" and "Baghdad" rather than "Carlton" and "Iraq" hardly makes any difference.
As for your last point, I don't think there is any industry in Carlton, but I could be wrong. The article seemed to indicate there was very high unemployment.
Originally posted by NargagunaHave you ever lived in Glasgow?
I read today (Telegraph) that life expectancy in East Glasgow is less than in Baghdad, but apparently there are more bods living on 'benefits' there than in any other part of the UK.
So does this support the conclusion that a benefits lifestyle is bad for the health?
No? See, that's why you don't understand why people want to die early there.
Originally posted by RedmikeWhy would a self respecting tory not read the guardian? Any self respecting person should try to find out the view of the other side, which is why I watch BBC.
I don't think you understand....
The Guardian is considered a relatively left-wing newspaper.
Not the sort of publication any self-respecting tory would read.
Originally posted by VargVarg!! Where has your avatar gone? Don't take it down just cos some lefties say it's racist!!
The story, and Nargaguna's quote was essentially that an area of a supposedly civilised, first world country has a lower life expectancy than somewhere which is generally considered to be rather dangerous.
The original story might be a bit dodgy, as you say, but that Nargaguna said "East Glasgow" and "Baghdad" rather than "Carlton" and "Iraq" hardly makes any ...[text shortened]... but I could be wrong. The article seemed to indicate there was very high unemployment.
Excellent post by the way.
Originally posted by princeoforangeNo, my subs ran out a while ago, and my avatar disappeared recently.
Varg!! Where has your avatar gone? Don't take it down just cos some lefties say it's racist!!
Excellent post by the way.
When I get my cheque book out, I'll get the avatar back, but might host it at www.fluffyhippypeacenikpagan.com or something.
Originally posted by princeoforangeI understand this.
Why would a self respecting tory not read the guardian? Any self respecting person should try to find out the view of the other side, which is why I watch BBC.
Iorek thought I was somehow impuning Naraguna by suggesting he wasn't a Guardian reader, I guess because he (not unreasonably) doesn't know the details of the UK press.
It was really just a tongue in cheek remark - Naraguna cites an story, there is some doubt about where he got it, Varg finds an article in the Guardian, I suggest Naraguna isn't a Guardian reader.
No big deal really.
Originally posted by AmauroteThe newspaper reports quoted were not referring to 'most workihg-class people' but specifically to East Glasgow which has both the worst health record, and the highest welfare benefits level, in the UK.
Most working-class people have a limited range of choices when it comes to their leisure time for all sorts of reasons, some culturally-defined, some environmentally, some economically (the price and accessibility of healthy foodstuffs) - just as most middle-class people have a notoriously limited dress sense not because they can't afford it, but because we ...[text shortened]... inally uncool is more than just an economic decision, it's fundamentally the middle class way.
Your contribution to this 'debate' merely confuses the issue with an irrelevancy.
By the way, paca-macs went out of fashion over 50 years ago so you must be a pretty ancient would-be cool yobbo.
I think some people here seem to take a quite narrow view of what poverty actually is.
So, we get people saying 'these people can't be poor if they can afford beer, fags and fast food'.
However, poverty isn't just about money (though people in places like the Calton don't have very much money anyway).
It is also about all sorts of other issues:
poor housing - dampness and poor heating etc are all known to be bad for people's health. Poor conditions generally can lead to all sorts of stress;
poor education - a lack of education means that people don't understand or care about the effects of their diet etc.
Also, a culture of hopelessness can build up - people don't have any aspiration to 'get on' in life, as they see generations before them and their peers around them stuck in the same hole. So they settle for the poor deal they have, and hide in a bottle or a syringe. Sure, some people 'get out' - by getting a job, marriage or whatever, but lots don't.
In terms of health, there is a knock-on effect across the generations. As well as death-rates being low in places like the Calton, birth weights are also at 'third world' levels. Which means kids born in these areas are at an immediate disadvantage.
Originally posted by XanthosNZNo have a look at:
Oh really?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3746162.stm puts the East Glasgow expectancy at 69.1/76.4 (male/female).
In Iraq (figures for Baghdad aren't available online) we have 67.76/70.31.
http://odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html
Can you provide any figures to back up your (The Telegraph's [although I'm a little doubtful of your close reading skills]) claim?
http://www.countryreports.org/country.aspx?countryid=264&countryName=Zambia
Zambia, Life Expectancy: 35.18
Throughout human history, disease has claimed more lives than war, and even in war, disease encouraged by war often claims as many lives as direct deaths by violence.
The real question is who is more guilty, a government that invades another country and kills 3,000 of its citizens or a government that allows 3,000 of its own citizens to die from disease due to inaction by the government?