ADUK Archive

Horse wrote:

exportmanuk wrote:

waremark wrote:The big win will come from self driving cars. But we (or our children) have a while to wait.
.

So some moron walk out in front of a self driving car without looking. The car stops dead. The moronic pedestrian does not eve notice and carries on walking, but the 4 passengers in the car are all injured from the massive braking forces.

How's that any different from a moron walking in front of an advanced driver?

Ah, the advanced driver would apply sufficient braking force, which might be rather less than 'massive', and therefore less damaging to passengers.

Horse wrote:

MGF wrote:

Horse wrote:One of my pet hates is when, in news interviews, medicos proudly say how many "lives they have saved" by their new intervention. Uh-oh, no. They just die of something else, later.

Saving a life doesn't mean making someone immortal. I think you have missed the point. The fact that we are mortal doesn't negate the benefit of saving life as and when it is possible.

It's not saved, the event is delayed and that person is given the opportunity to have a different fate.

In any case, measures taken to save some lives, might have to be paid for by facing an increased risk of losing lives elsewhere, e.g., speed humps and similar measures causing delays to emergency services.

jont wrote:

MGF wrote:

Horse wrote:One of my pet hates is when, in news interviews, medicos proudly say how many "lives they have saved" by their new intervention. Uh-oh, no. They just die of something else, later.

Saving a life doesn't mean making someone immortal. I think you have missed the point. The fact that we are mortal doesn't negate the benefit of saving life as and when it is possible.

Only if it's 0 cost to save that particular life in that particular place. Otherwise, as we don't have limitless money, there is a downside for somebody, somewhere else.

There are of course, competing beneficiaries but in most cases the person saved benefits from a longer life.

We seem to rate the importance of saving life by how it comes to an end. We are more accepting of death by natural causes than we are of killing oneself which is more acceptable than being killed by someone else's carelessness, which is more acceptable than being killed maliciously, I think.

It may be that the sudden and violent nature of road traffic casualties and the fact that they are caused by people's carelessness makes for a greater desire to reduce them.

Horse wrote:...the event is delayed and that person is given the opportunity to have a different fate.

That is the meaning of the word 'saved' in this context. It is a correct use of the English language and it also makes sense. Apart from situations where time of death can be predicted with reasonable accuracy all discussion on the value of life presupposes mortality otherwise there could be no value to life at all and no basis for saving it.

TripleS wrote:Separately from all that, it seems wrong to me that the NHS is now increasingly being burdened by having to deal with people whose problems are largely self-inflicted: poor diet, lack of exercise and generally poor lifstyle etc. This is not to advocate that we should all be fanatical health freaks etc., but a simple policy of looking after ourselves and not inviting ailments etc., as many people seem to be doing, would go at least some way to relieving the burden on the NHS.

But where do you draw the line? If someone has an accident while taking part in sport, should that be covered? Motorsport? Falls off their [motor]bike when out simply riding for pleasure? Those are lifestyle choices, just like the fatty.

jont wrote:

TripleS wrote:Separately from all that, it seems wrong to me that the NHS is now increasingly being burdened by having to deal with people whose problems are largely self-inflicted: poor diet, lack of exercise and generally poor lifstyle etc. This is not to advocate that we should all be fanatical health freaks etc., but a simple policy of looking after ourselves and not inviting ailments etc., as many people seem to be doing, would go at least some way to relieving the burden on the NHS.

But where do you draw the line? If someone has an accident while taking part in sport, should that be covered? Motorsport? Falls off their [motor]bike when out simply riding for pleasure? Those are lifestyle choices, just like the fatty.

There should be a "fair wear and tear" clause, so that would be a "no" to all of the above.

Silk wrote:

jont wrote:

TripleS wrote:Separately from all that, it seems wrong to me that the NHS is now increasingly being burdened by having to deal with people whose problems are largely self-inflicted: poor diet, lack of exercise and generally poor lifstyle etc. This is not to advocate that we should all be fanatical health freaks etc., but a simple policy of looking after ourselves and not inviting ailments etc., as many people seem to be doing, would go at least some way to relieving the burden on the NHS.

But where do you draw the line? If someone has an accident while taking part in sport, should that be covered? Motorsport? Falls off their [motor]bike when out simply riding for pleasure? Those are lifestyle choices, just like the fatty.

There should be a "fair wear and tear" clause, so that would be a "no" to all of the above.

Similarly 'making progress ' overtaking but running out of talent?

jont wrote:

TripleS wrote:Separately from all that, it seems wrong to me that the NHS is now increasingly being burdened by having to deal with people whose problems are largely self-inflicted: poor diet, lack of exercise and generally poor lifstyle etc. This is not to advocate that we should all be fanatical health freaks etc., but a simple policy of looking after ourselves and not inviting ailments etc., as many people seem to be doing, would go at least some way to relieving the burden on the NHS.

But where do you draw the line? If someone has an accident while taking part in sport, should that be covered? Motorsport? Falls off their [motor]bike when out simply riding for pleasure? Those are lifestyle choices, just like the fatty.

It seems to me reasonable that NHS funding should cover things like ailments suffered in the normal course of events, natural causes etc. (that seems to be a big enough task in itself) but where we indulge in activities for additional pleasure purposes, any mishaps resulting from that should be covered by some form of insurance arranged by the individual. Maybe this already happens to some extent, but I don't know if it does.

As for making the lifestyle choice to be a fatty, I don't think it's a very sensible and legitimate option to choose. At least smokers, for example, contribute huge sums in taxation which pays for the damage they do to themselves.

I'm all in favour of people having freedom to make their own choices as to how they run their lives - I bang on about that often enough - but I do think they ought to contribute towards any additional costs that arise from the choices they make.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Increasing evidence that being a fatty may be beyond the individual's control, aspects such as gut bacteria.

Horse wrote:Increasing evidence that being a fatty may be beyond the individual's control, aspects such as gut bacteria.

A bacteria that only seems to exist in the more wealthy parts of the world.

Some curiously nihilist/fatalist views on here!

To maintain our current casualty rate requires continual resource. If you "move on" to something else, and take away those resources, the rate will rise again. How quickly that happens depends on things like whether the successes are structural (e.g. designed into the road environment) or behavioural (e.g. campaigns).

In a fairly freeform context like roads, reducing casualties must become exponentially more expensive as you converge on a zero rate. In a more tightly controlled context like aviation, that's more feasible and indeed has been achieved within certain parameters. On the roads we are transitioning towards that kind of environment through automation, so the cost-effective or cost-acceptable point is moving.

Horse wrote:Increasing evidence that being a fatty may be beyond the individual's control, aspects such as gut bacteria.

....and of course there's also the old 'thyroid problem' to be blamed.

I don't doubt that a proportion of the fatties are having genuine difficulty in keeping their weight within reasonable bounds, but I can't help feeling that most of the problem is being caused by over-eating generally, or eating too much of the wrong stuff, allied to a relative lack of activity to counter it.

trashbat wrote:Some curiously nihilist/fatalist views on here!

[Oz mode]
'Ow's that then? (spoken with a Tyneside accent)
[/Oz]



Incidentally, shouldn't this be about 'low hanging' fruit rather than 'low lying' fruit? I mean, if it's lying, it will be low, will it not?

TripleS wrote:...Incidentally, shouldn't this be about 'low hanging' fruit rather than 'low lying' fruit? I mean, if it's lying, it will be low, will it not?

Good point - corrected!

Horse wrote:

MGF wrote:

Horse wrote:One of my pet hates is when, in news interviews, medicos proudly say how many "lives they have saved" by their new intervention. Uh-oh, no. They just die of something else, later.

Saving a life doesn't mean making someone immortal. I think you have missed the point. The fact that we are mortal doesn't negate the benefit of saving life as and when it is possible.

It's not saved, the event is delayed and that person is given the opportunity to have a different fate.

"War doesn't increase death ." C S Lewis. But medical intervention may result in a better outcome for more than just the patient/victim.

The death rate is generally constant at around 100%. I'd argue (of course) that the rate can be clawed back...