Modern Life Is Rubbish

[Tyke02]

2 hours ago, Chekhov said:

The inescapable trend is more regulation "to keep us safe", who can deny that has true ?

And, bearing in mind it has been going on for about 150 years, and is actually accelerating (pandemic......), only a fool would deny it. In fact it's got so bad now that people calling for a proportionate attitude towards personal risk, which includes personal responsibility, are labelled selfish by some people who cannot see they are being equally, if not more, selfish by telling others how to live their lives.

There has indeed been a lot of regulation to reduce risk over the last 150 years, and I suspect that's one of the reasons for life expectancy more than doubling during that period. It's unreasonable to suggest that all regulation is bad as it has delivered a range of benefits from water free from infectious diseases to lower injury and death rates in workplaces and on the roads. There may be disproportionate impositions in amongst the worthwhile ones, but claiming the whole thing is spinning out of control isn't going to change anything. 

 

Regarding personal risk and responsibility I think we need to establish whether taking on a personal risk has potential implications for others - if it doesn't then fill yer boots! These implications could be either directly when a risk taker's speeding car runs over them, or indirectly because enough people's risk taking leads to concurrent casualties that they can't all get a good standard of healthcare. 

[Chekhov]

51 minutes ago, Tyke02 said:

I find it surprising that somebody so invested in their point of view  can be so defeatist. The legislative process includes some checks and balances, for example before the Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020 came in there was a consultation (that included individual landlords and landlord organisations) regarding the proposals before they were implemented. That sort of activity does give you the opportunity to have your say, if you are switched on enough to know what is going on.

 

A narrative that everything is awful and it will inevitably get worse is unlikely to change anything, and tends to come across as a litany of complaints. How about taking a more positive approach, for example campaigning for a requirement for proposals for new regulations to be supported by cost benefit analysis? I suspect you would find much wider support for that.

That would be  a very good idea.

But the problem is that some people think even putting a value on a human life is "callous", and by extension anything that could save one life is worth doing.  Furthermore the "costs" are not always monetary and therefore hard to put a "value" on. 

The best example is my oft quoted comment by Mike Buckley that all secondary school pupils wearing a mask would be worthwhile if it saved one life.  I'm sure he would argue there is no "cost", or "only a minimal cost" (in his view) to that and therefore it is worthwhile. Similarly Sibon's insistence that the ban on parents taking pics of their kids' school performances only has minimal cost (in his view) and therefore the edict is worthwhile even if it just reduces the chances of some serious outcome to one family.

[Chekhov]

37 minutes ago, Tyke02 said:

There has indeed been a lot of regulation to reduce risk over the last 150 years, and I suspect that's one of the reasons for life expectancy more than doubling during that period. It's unreasonable to suggest that all regulation is bad as it has delivered a range of benefits from water free from infectious diseases to lower injury and death rates in workplaces and on the roads. There may be disproportionate impositions in amongst the worthwhile ones, but claiming the whole thing is spinning out of control isn't going to change anything. 

 

Regarding personal risk and responsibility I think we need to establish whether taking on a personal risk has potential implications for others - if it doesn't then fill yer boots! These implications could be either directly when a risk taker's speeding car runs over them, or indirectly because enough people's risk taking leads to concurrent casualties that they can't all get a good standard of healthcare. 

I am certainly not suggesting that, to quote the page on my own website :

 

the long term historical trend of society to accept more and more restrictions on our lives in order to "keep us safe". The absolute apogee of this (so far....) was our response to Covid, a response the like of which had never before occurred in the 300,000 year history of our species. This trend of more restrictions has actually been with us since the early 1800s, though up till about the 1980s increasing health and safety was undoubtedly a good thing. Now, however, it has gone too far, and, most worryingly, the trend is not slowing down, if anything it is accelerating. 

 

 >>one of the reasons for life expectancy more than doubling during that period<<

 

The main one is we are all much better off, plus medical advances obviously. H&S edicts etc, esp in the last 50 years or so, will only have had a relatively minor effect.

[trastrick]

No one disputes that rules are required to live in a orderly society.

 

The problem that some of us see, is that many rules are made arbitrarily and directed to the lowest common denominator in society, as in preventing potential paedo parents from taking pictures of their kids school play, or sports day.

 

So society gradually falls from the moral question "does it make sense"?, to "is it legal?"

 

The upshot being, if it's not illegal, it's ok!

 

Likewise with "universal" benefits,  it's ok for Trump, Boris and other millionaires and their families to get government handouts for free education, health care, child credits, and other goodies.

 

But the question, does it make sense? in a society that is racking up unsustainable debt,  is not applied. Everybody is tarred, or privileged by the same brush. Once the government is in charge of , and accountable (even liable) for every regulation, they constantly have to micromanage the rules to ensure that they cover every conceivable possibility of none compliance.

 

This can only be accomplished by a manifesto, or a little Red Book (updated weekly) that everybody has to comply with. And with enough government officials to enforce it.

 

What doesn't make sense, of course, is that these onerous and numerous regulations are only followed by the law abiding citizens among us, while the real criminals, and scofflaws, laugh, and give the finger to the regulations followed by a sheepish,and dumbed down society, and crime continues on its merry way!

 

It can't end well.

 

 

[Tyke02]

50 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

But the problem is that some people think even putting a value on a human life is "callous", and by extension anything that could save one life is worth doing.

"Some people" think all sorts of things!  The principle of putting a value on a life is however well embedded in official thinking, or more precisely how much it is reasonable to spend to prevent one death:

- The Treasury values one QALY at £60,000

- NICE assesses new treatments and usually rejects those that would cost more than £20-30k per QALY

- "Value of a prevented fatality" is used in many Government departments and is currently £1.8 million. 

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

Furthermore the "costs" are not always monetary and therefore hard to put a "value" on. 

That's true, there's going to be a need for value judgements in some cases, and for your pandemic example there are other obvious difficulties due to the uncertainties inherent in a fast developing situation. That's not true of the EICRs that we were talking about though. Even in those subjects where non monetary costs and benefits need to be considered the CBA approach at least provides a framework for discussion that helps avoid people focusing only on, for example, health impacts to the exclusion of social or economic impacts (or vice versa).

[Chekhov]

2 hours ago, Tyke02 said:

"Some people" think all sorts of things!  The principle of putting a value on a life is however well embedded in official thinking, or more precisely how much it is reasonable to spend to prevent one death:

- The Treasury values one QALY at £60,000

- NICE assesses new treatments and usually rejects those that would cost more than £20-30k per QALY

- "Value of a prevented fatality" is used in many Government departments and is currently £1.8 million. 

Surely that should depend on the age of the person ?

I have no problem with spending £1.8 million on a child who may well have 80 years of life left, but spending it on someone with 5 years expected life ? Not so much.

 

2 hours ago, Tyke02 said:

That's true, there's going to be a need for value judgements in some cases, and for your pandemic example there are other obvious difficulties due to the uncertainties inherent in a fast developing situation. That's not true of the EICRs that we were talking about though. Even in those subjects where non monetary costs and benefits need to be considered the CBA approach at least provides a framework for discussion that helps avoid people focusing only on, for example, health impacts to the exclusion of social or economic impacts (or vice versa).

I agree with you.

Using the figure of £1.8 million per life, if ECIRs cost the country £250 million a year and save 10 lives a year (and I suspect that's an over estimate) that's £25 million a life....

As you have pointed out the NHS would not spend £25 million on treating one patient, no where near, even a child.

But, of course, that £250 million is only for the inspections, it does not include the cost of any work required to get the properties to "current regulations", which, let's remind ourselves, does not mean they are actually dangerous anyway. So, it is entirely possible those theoretical 10 lives could cost half a Billion pounds a year.......

So how did this madness ever get through ?

Edited June 8, 2022 by Chekhov

[trastrick]

Just now, Chekhov said:

Surely that should depend on the age of the person ?

I have no problem with spending £1.8 million on a child who may well have 80 years of life left, but spending it on someone with 5 years expected life ? Not so much.

 

I agree with you.

Using the figure of £1.8 million per life, if ECIRs cost the country £250 million a year and save 10 lives a year (and I suspect that's an over estimate) that's £25 million a life....

As you have pointed out the NHS would not spend £25 million on treating one patient, no where near, even a child.

But, of course, that £250 million is only for the inspections, it does not include the cost of any work required to get the properties to "current regulations", which, let's remind ourselves, does not mean they are actually dangerous anyway. So, it is entirely possible those theoretical 10 lives could cost half a Billion pounds a year.......

So how did this madness ever get through ?

They've put a monetary value on life?

 

How much for a guy who invents a cure for cancer?

 

How much for a serial rapist?

 

A new born baby?

 

A baby one day away from being born?

 

It's a crazy world you folks inhabit! 

 

 

A 

 

$1.8 million?

 

Lol

 

 

[RJRB]

4 hours ago, Chekhov said:

That would be  a very good idea.

But the problem is that some people think even putting a value on a human life is "callous", and by extension anything that could save one life is worth doing.  Furthermore the "costs" are not always monetary and therefore hard to put a "value" on. 

The best example is my oft quoted comment by Mike Buckley that all secondary school pupils wearing a mask would be worthwhile if it saved one life.  I'm sure he would argue there is no "cost", or "only a minimal cost" (in his view) to that and therefore it is worthwhile. Similarly Sibon's insistence that the ban on parents taking pics of their kids' school performances only has minimal cost (in his view) and therefore the edict is worthwhile even if it just reduces the chances of some serious outcome to one family.

Cost benefit analysis has its place but is far from being a total solution.

Costs  in money terms may supposedly be calculated at a point in time but massive over runs or constant upward revision seem to be the norm on most major projects.

There  are numerous examples including most government projects .Do any come in on budget .

As for benefit,that can be even harder to define.Not everything can be assessed in monetary terms.

HS2 fails for me on both fronts

As for your oft quoted Mike Buckley comments this is hyperbole that you are determined to take literally.

Just like your claim to be a downtrodden white ,middle aged ,middle class  victim is designed to make a point by exaggeration.(At least I hope it was  or you are unhinged)

[Tyke02]

2 hours ago, Chekhov said:

Surely that should depend on the age of the person ?

I have no problem with spending £1.8 million on a child who may well have 80 years of life left, but spending it on someone with 5 years expected life ? Not so much.

There's quite a bit of debate on this that you could read up on if you wished. An average value of prevented fatality as mentioned is not unreasonable if you can't predict the age of the person affected by a particular hazard.

2 hours ago, Chekhov said:

Using the figure of £1.8 million per life, if ECIRs cost the country £250 million a year and save 10 lives a year (and I suspect that's an over estimate) that's £25 million a life....

Let me know if you can come up with any stats to support this assumption. I drew a blank, but from fire service reporting came up with the information that fire seems to be seven times as likely in rented versus owned property, and electrical faults are in the top two causes of fire in rental properties, so it might be higher than you think.

2 hours ago, Chekhov said:

So how did this madness ever get through ?

In the report on the consultation process there isn't a breakdown of how different interest groups voted on the various proposals, but looking at the numbers it's clear that some landlords/landlord groups supported it. Perhaps they were doing this as best practice anyway, and so for them it was a cost they were incurring anyway, so didn't see why their fellow landlords shouldn't.

[Tyke02]

1 hour ago, trastrick said:

They've put a monetary value on life?

 

How much for a guy who invents a cure for cancer?

 

How much for a serial rapist?

 

A new born baby?

 

A baby one day away from being born?

 

It's a crazy world you folks inhabit! 

 

 

A 

 

$1.8 million?

 

Lol

Think of it not as a value on life, but the cost of preventing (well, delaying) a death.

 

Uncomfortable though it may be, in the absence of an unlimited budget countries providing healthcare (and all the other things that prolong life) need to have some  mechanism of deciding how much it is reasonable to spend out of taxation to do that.  There is of course the option used by some other nations of letting people decide for themselves how much to spend on healthcare, at least those people who have the money to choose.

Edited June 8, 2022 by Tyke02