[Mr Dangermouse]

@Good Bloke.


I would imagine you might change your tune should your son or daughter be among the 18.

[internetguru]

(Original post by Good bloke)
But this is an opposition bill. The opposition cannot run a deficit.

Has everyone lost all sense of reality?

So who is paying for it?

[Good bloke]

(Original post by Mr Dangermouse)
@Good Bloke.


I would imagine you might change your tune should your son or daughter be among the 18.

Don't be silly. If we had a spare £30 million kicking about (and I did say if, since we don't), I would want it spent in the most effective way to address the problem at hand, and that would save the largest number of lives possible. £30 million could be far better spent on additional screening, for instance, which would stand a good chance of saving far more lives for the same cost.

[TopHat]

(Original post by Good bloke)
Apart from all the details, and the fact there is no funding.

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension the TSR Opposition can cost a bill. We can't. If we had to fund every bill we passed, then the TSR Opposition could not, for very obvious reasons, submit any bills at all. Financial matters are a preserve of the Government (incidentally, one of whom has expressed interest in supporting the bill).

You talked about the potential to save 700 lives. Only a sixth of those lives are children's, it seems, which will be at school for only 15% of their time. The likely result is a possibility of saving 17 or 18 lives a year. It doesn't make such a good headline when you present the truth, does it?

If you'd bothered to read the notes, you'd have discovered the 700 already referred to the children. 16-17 cases of SADS occur each week, which is 832 a year. A sixth of that is children, so 139 a year. Over 5 years, that's 695 - which is where the 700 over 5 years figure came from in the notes.

As for the amount of time children are in school, those between 0-18 spend approximately 15% of all time in schools, true. However, approximately 33% of those hours are spent sleeping, and SADS almost never occurs while sleeping, as the heart is in steady state. In addition, school (and particularly the school playground) is one of the most likely places for the exertion that could trigger SADS. School comprises 22% of a child's waking hours, and should be weighted even higher considering it also comprises most of their active hours. Even if you accept only 22%, that's still 154 lives in 5 years, or 31 a year, and that's a vast underestimate provided to prove a point only.

This isn't maintenance. A device is no use if it doesn't work when called into use.

As I've pointed out, AEDs need very little maintenance. Essentially, provided the package has remained sealed, the electrodes have not passed their use-by date, and the battery is functioning properly, nothing else really needs to be done.

To airily dismiss £20-30 million as not very much says it all.

Most parties seem to think it worthwhile. UKIP have even expressed an interest in expanding the funding to cover first-aid training for general staff, as have members of the Government.

You are seeking to pass a bill without a budget and then force the government to foot the bill.

You seem to be unaware of how the TSR MHoC works...

Correction, force the taxpayer to foot the bill. Please stop trying to spending my money on unjustified, improperly costed ventures.

Force? The taxpayer voted this House in, and generally, I think the reception for this bill has been favourable. Most people seem to think it is a good use of money. In addition, the costing for this bill has been fully provided.

[JPKC]

(Original post by TopHat)
You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension the TSR Opposition can cost a bill. We can't. If we had to fund every bill we passed, then the TSR Opposition could not, for very obvious reasons, submit any bills at all.

The Libertarian Party costed their bills last term, there should always be some element of finance - just how much it would need to work, not an entire budget, unless the Act isn't asking for additional spending. I think this Bill's done okay with doing that, but some source links in the notes would be good.

If you'd bothered to read the notes, you'd have discovered the 700 already referred to the children. 16-17 cases of SADS occur each week, which is 832 a year. A sixth of that is children, so 139 a year. Over 5 years, that's 695 - which is where the 700 over 5 years figure came from in the notes.

As for the amount of time children are in school, those between 0-18 spend approximately 15% of all time in schools, true. However, approximately 33% of those hours are spent sleeping, and SADS almost never occurs while sleeping, as the heart is in steady state. In addition, school (and particularly the school playground) is one of the most likely places for the exertion that could trigger SADS. School comprises 22% of a child's waking hours, and should be weighted even higher considering it also comprises most of their active hours. Even if you accept only 22%, that's still 154 lives in 5 years, or 31 a year, and that's a vast underestimate provided to prove a point only.

The amount being suggested for c.154 lives per 5 years is not very good value for money - the millions could be invested in other areas and save more lives. Obviously that's a crass consideration to make, but truthful.

[Good bloke]

(Original post by TopHat)
You seem to be unaware of how the TSR MHoC works...



Force? The taxpayer voted this House in, and generally, I think the reception for this bill has been favourable. Most people seem to think it is a good use of money. In addition, the costing for this bill has been fully provided.

You are right and it seems to be full of surprises, especially if it involves an electorate voting in a government that excluides your party but allows the opposition to bring forward the legislation and spend the money, leaving the government to find the money. Bizarre! Anarchy.

[TopHat]

(Original post by JPKC)
The Libertarian Party costed their bills last term, there should always be some element of finance - just how much it would need to work, not an entire budget, unless the Act isn't asking for additional spending. I think this Bill's done okay with doing that, but some source links in the notes would be good.

I'm aware of that, but I should point out we've done exactly that. We have costed it and even given a slight overestimate of the cost. Sure, we didn't provide the links in the notes, but when asked we have provided them. To suggest we didn't cost this bill adequately is a lie.

The amount being suggested for c.154 lives per 5 years is not very good value for money - the millions could be invested in other areas and save more lives. Obviously that's a crass consideration to make, but truthful.

But the thing is, this (as pointed out before) is a sunk cost. You pay once, and then all you need is a much, much smaller upkeep fee. So, while it's 20 million for 154 lives over 5 years (and as pointed out, 154 is a gross underestimate for the purpose of proving a point), it's approximately 22 million (and that's a gross overestimate given I doubt very much that AEDs have a 10% renewal rate over 5 years! They can last for much, much longer than that!) for 308 lives over 10 years, and approximately 24 million for 462 lives over 15 years - and this is massively erring on the side of caution both in costs and lives. Look to the long term, not the short term.

[JPKC]

(Original post by TopHat)
I'm aware of that, but I should point out we've done exactly that. We have costed it and even given a slight overestimate of the cost. Sure, we didn't provide the links in the notes, but when asked we have provided them. To suggest we didn't cost this bill adequately is a lie.

No that wouldn't be a lie, it'd be a mistake. And that's why I said it was fine! But IMO you should have referenced the sources for costing in the notes because that's the main point of contention in the bill discussion. I was merely pointing out that non-government bills should be as financially coherent as the government's own, as you'd said "You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension [that] the TSR Opposition can cost a bill." which is not really the case.

But the thing is, this (as pointed out before) is a sunk cost. You pay once, and then all you need is a much, much smaller upkeep fee. So, while it's 20 million for 154 lives over 5 years (and as pointed out, 154 is a gross underestimate for the purpose of proving a point), it's approximately 22 million (and that's a gross overestimate given I doubt very much that AEDs have a 10% renewal rate over 5 years! They can last for much, much longer than that!) for 308 lives over 10 years, and approximately 24 million for 462 lives over 15 years - and this is massively erring on the side of caution both in costs and lives. Look to the long term, not the short term.

How long do the AEDs last before needing to be replaced?

FYI I still support the bill because actually 154 lives in 5 years for c.£20m ain't as bad as I initially suspected. Still want this expanded into the private sector though, and more marketised etc. etc.

[TopHat]

(Original post by JPKC)
No that wouldn't be a lie, it'd be a mistake. And that's why I said it was fine! But IMO you should have referenced the sources for costing in the notes because that's the main point of contention in the bill discussion. I was merely pointing out that non-government bills should be as financially coherent as the government's own, as you'd said "You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension [that] the TSR Opposition can cost a bill."

We will bear that in mind for future notes. Mind, I think that's something the government could work on themselves, considering on the Transracial Bill, the restrictions spoken of officially don't exist (slightly OoT, but when is the second reading of the Transracial Bill coming through?).

How long do the AEDs last before needing to be replaced?

Technically speaking, the AED itself doesn't need to be replaced (as far as half an hour's Googling will reveal, anyway). The electrodes which form part of the AED and the battery need replacing from time to time, but that varies by manufacturer. 3 years seems an approximate average, and a single electrode replacement is around £25.

FYI I still support the bill because actually 154 lives per £20m ain't as bad as I initially suspected. Still want this expanded into the private sector though, and more marketised etc. etc.

Given there quite a few parties have expressed interest in expanding this bill, I'd be interested to hear whether the Govt would support a version which expanded to cover training.

[JPKC]

(Original post by TopHat)
We will bear that in mind for future notes. Mind, I think that's something the government could work on themselves, considering on the Transracial Bill, the restrictions spoken of officially don't exist (slightly OoT, but when is the second reading of the Transracial Bill coming through?).

They don't exist nationwide, but they do informally within some LAs. The second reading has been written and will soon be plopped onto the Speaker's desk.

Technically speaking, the AED itself doesn't need to be replaced (as far as half an hour's Googling will reveal, anyway). The electrodes which form part of the AED and the battery need replacing from time to time, but that varies by manufacturer. 3 years seems an approximate average, and a single electrode replacement is around £25.

That's very reasonable. (Might get one for myself.)

Given there quite a few parties have expressed interest in expanding this bill, I'd be interested to hear whether the Govt would support a version which expanded to cover training.

We'll get back to you on that.

[RoryS]

Aye

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by JPKC)
Your point? The costs incurred by business would be less, as the burden would be diluted - the public should pay for regulations that fall under our collective interests. Who knows when one of us will be in the cinema and suddenly keel over.

Then it should be up to businesses to provide them, and for consumers and/or workers to decide how important factor this is in their decision making. If indeed the collective will is to have defibrillators everywhere, then so be it, it will be done since even if it's only a small amount of change in demand then it's only a small cost too.

It just sets my head on fire when the idea of a subsidy making the cost disappear is mooted.

Now, schools we have a different argument since we don't have the level of school choice available, but I see it again as a bit of a blunt instrument. What if the school is right next door to a hospital? Is it going to be significantly quicker to go get the one school defibrillator or to get them straight to the hospital? I think a little more nuanced thinking is needed behind this, but I'm not completely against it.

[JPKC]

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
Then it should be up to businesses to provide them, and for consumers and/or workers to decide how important factor this is in their decision making. If indeed the collective will is to have defibrillators everywhere, then so be it, it will be done since even if it's only a small amount of change in demand then it's only a small cost too.

You think that people are capable of making judgements like that? "Oh, I'm not going to go see Prometheus today because I'm worried the cinema won't have any defibrilators and I wouldn't want to be in that 0.001% of people who die without access to AEDs!" We're not computers. And how is the collective will measured? Does the free market hold opinion surveys now or do we just have to rely on it picking up our individual rational decisions each time to choose not to go to a place without a defibrilator?

It just sets my head on fire when the idea of a subsidy making the cost disappear is mooted.

Obviously the raw cost will be the same, but subsidies can decide how the cost is spread out. It can alleviate the amount spent by businesses and transfer that to the general public as ultimately it is the public as a whole that benefit from increasing the availability of defibrilators (much in the same way that a tightrope walker benefits from the existence of a safety net beneath them, even if they do not use it).

[CyclopsRock]

I'm confused about why this is a decision to be made by parliament rather than the school itself. Because the schools aren't making the decisions we want them to? Well guess what - they're the ones that have to balance their budgets, not us.

[barnetlad]

This was an issue I think discussed in the election campaign where I departed from the MRLP style manifesto and I confirm my support.

[James82]

(Original post by TopHat)
If you'd bothered to read the notes, you'd have discovered the 700 already referred to the children. 16-17 cases of SADS occur each week, which is 832 a year. A sixth of that is children, so 139 a year. Over 5 years, that's 695 - which is where the 700 over 5 years figure came from in the notes.

As for the amount of time children are in school, those between 0-18 spend approximately 15% of all time in schools, true. However, approximately 33% of those hours are spent sleeping, and SADS almost never occurs while sleeping, as the heart is in steady state. In addition, school (and particularly the school playground) is one of the most likely places for the exertion that could trigger SADS. School comprises 22% of a child's waking hours, and should be weighted even higher considering it also comprises most of their active hours. Even if you accept only 22%, that's still 154 lives in 5 years, or 31 a year, and that's a vast underestimate provided to prove a point only.

Even when people go into cardiac arrest in hospital with all the staff and equipment the survival rate is still only about 15%, what makes you think you can save 100% of children who go into cardiac arrest in school?

[TopHat]

Corinne Ruiz of the SADS Foundation notes the survival rates from SADS if defibrillators can be applied quickly enough are around 50%. The 15% rate may be for other types of heart failure which defibrillators are also used for.

[James82]

(Original post by TopHat)
Corinne Ruiz of the SADS Foundation notes the survival rates from SADS if defibrillators can be applied quickly enough are around 50%. The 15% rate may be for other types of heart failure which defibrillators are also used for.

I was talking about cardiac arrests in general, the survival rates out of hospital range from 2%-8%, in hospital it is 15%.

Regarding SADS, it has a 100% mortality rate, the clue is in the name.

[TopHat]

Sorry, you know what I mean, cardiac arrest due to arrhythmia.

[Jarred]

I know that you are well meaning, but I must ask; is it really necessary? School children aren't exactly renowned for having heart problems, most are incredibly healthy when it comes to their hearts. I think you should at least have included some proof of the number of people (school children specifically) that die of this syndrome everyday, all we have is your word. Furthermore, how many actually die during school time? For all we know the majority of these school kids occur at home where school defibrillators would make no difference. Surely a better idea is to channel the money into improving the response time of the emergency services so that those affected, schoolchildren or otherwise, can be defibbed by a paramedic.

My problem is whether this would just end up being a waste? And also, its one of those many things where you get the issue of not knowing where to stop. Surely this is the job of hospitals? We have hospitals to heal and schools to teach. How far do we go? How far is it until you claim the government should pay to install a defibrillator in every public building? In every home? As the cost just goes up and up and up. If there is a health problem we need to fix then we should be targeting the provisions of fixing it at the emergency services end instead. Because that helps out a lot more people; including those suffering from other health problems. This bill is a tad too one-sighted, it aims to fix one problem when it could fix multiple. Not that I am necessarily endorsing doing that either, just that it would've been a better proposal.