FINALLY!! Ian Duncan Smith Releases Death Statistics! Watch

Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#61
Report 4 years ago
#61
(Original post by scrotgrot)
Had they undergone a medical examination within the prior two weeks which determined they were fit for work?
If they had, would the result of the test been "you're about to die".

And while here, I wonder just how many people making a fuss here over nothing want more liberal drug policies even though annual drug fatalities are about 250pc the annualised rate here?

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
scrotgrot
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#62
Report 4 years ago
#62
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
If they had, would the result of the test been "you're about to die".

And while here, I wonder just how many people making a fuss here over nothing want more liberal drug policies even though annual drug fatalities are about 250pc the annualised rate here?

Posted from TSR Mobile
No, it would have been "you're so ill you're unfit for work and you're going in the Support Group"

I would want more liberal policies on cannabis and ecstasy which don't contribute to drug fatalities. "Drugs" are a stupid dog-whistle classification, remarkably similar to "scroungers".
0
reply
RollerBall
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#63
Report 4 years ago
#63
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
If they had, would the result of the test been "you're about to die".

And while here, I wonder just how many people making a fuss here over nothing want more liberal drug policies even though annual drug fatalities are about 250pc the annualised rate here?

Posted from TSR Mobile
I don't understand how your latter point is relevant?

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#64
Report 4 years ago
#64
(Original post by scrotgrot)
No, it would have been "you're so ill you're unfit for work and you're going in the Support Group"

I would want more liberal policies on cannabis and ecstasy which don't contribute to drug fatalities. "Drugs" are a stupid dog-whistle classification, remarkably similar to "scroungers".
So you're saying that every single fatality is predictable?
God save you, I think you need to be on ESA.

And ecstasy doesn't kill? I guess you didn't pay much in biology either.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#65
Report 4 years ago
#65
(Original post by RollerBall)
I don't understand how your latter point is relevant?

Posted from TSR Mobile
It's an aside, a question of how many people believe something should be done about the DWP because less than a thousand died a year because they don't have a crystal ball and meanwhile want, in assume cases, incredibly liberal drug regulation, I.e. none, despite it being the cause of death, or biggest factor leading to it, for over 3000 a year.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
scrotgrot
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#66
Report 4 years ago
#66
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
So you're saying that every single fatality is predictable?
God save you, I think you need to be on ESA.

And ecstasy doesn't kill? I guess you didn't pay much in biology either.

Posted from TSR Mobile
No, just the vast majority of them, particularly when the person undergoes a stringent medical examination. We have already covered this in previous pages.

The ecstasy death rate is 27 out of 500,000 users. Therefore it is approximately ten times less alarming than the death rate on the WRAG.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#67
Report 4 years ago
#67
(Original post by scrotgrot)
Had they undergone a medical examination within the prior two weeks which determined they were fit for work?
We're they deemed unfit to work? Incapable of work.

You seem to be fascinated with this meaningless statistic.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#68
Report 4 years ago
#68
(Original post by scrotgrot)
No, just the vast majority of them, particularly when the person undergoes a stringent medical examination. We have already covered this in previous pages.

The ecstasy death rate is 27 out of 500,000 users. Therefore it is approximately ten times less alarming than the death rate on the WRAG.
Thankfully you're finally beginning to get it. The ecstasy death rate is deaths attributed to ecstasy. I.e the cause of death is known.
0
reply
scrotgrot
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#69
Report 4 years ago
#69
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Thankfully you're finally beginning to get it. The ecstasy death rate is deaths attributed to ecstasy. I.e the cause of death is known.
And it is entirely tangential to the discussion. I am not and have at no point been claiming that being kicked off ESA entirely/off the SG contributed to these people's deaths. Merely that if the WCA is a proper medical evidence based examination the majority of people would have been picked up, per my list of common causes of death only a few of which are misadventure.

It is like if someone having overdosed on ecstasy came to the doctor and they said "nah you're fine go away and stop taking up bed space" and then you died because of the ecstasy. The doctor had he been doing his job properly would have recognised symptoms and tested for drugs and put the patient into the "**** we need to do something" group rather than the "buck up, go home and get out of my sight" group.
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#70
Report 4 years ago
#70
(Original post by scrotgrot)
No, just the vast majority of them, particularly when the person undergoes a stringent medical examination. We have already covered this in previous pages.

The ecstasy death rate is 27 out of 500,000 users. Therefore it is approximately ten times less alarming than the death rate on the WRAG.
So, there are 50,000 who have died within 2 weeks of losing their benefit, only 2380 of them have been declared fit for work, with your lists of leading working age causes of death the top position on ALL of them, top few with some, all gave no reliable date of death, so you have just gone back around to the start. You have said that the majority are predictable when, with the limited information available, the contrary is the logical conclusion, or are we going back the the "we know exactly when somebody with a heart condition is going to have a heart attack"?
1
reply
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#71
Report 4 years ago
#71
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
It's an aside, a question of how many people believe something should be done about the DWP because less than a thousand died a year because they don't have a crystal ball and meanwhile want, in assume cases, incredibly liberal drug regulation, I.e. none, despite it being the cause of death, or biggest factor leading to it, for over 3000 a year.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Do you think IDS should walk for his department fabricating testimonies from
JSA claimants?


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
RollerBall
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#72
Report 4 years ago
#72
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
It's an aside, a question of how many people believe something should be done about the DWP because less than a thousand died a year because they don't have a crystal ball and meanwhile want, in assume cases, incredibly liberal drug regulation, I.e. none, despite it being the cause of death, or biggest factor leading to it, for over 3000 a year.

Posted from TSR Mobile
I don't think it's a big deal and I want more liberal drug policies. They're not related what so ever and just detract from your overall argument.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#73
Report 4 years ago
#73
(Original post by RollerBall)
I don't think it's a big deal and I want more liberal drug policies. They're not related what so ever and just detract from your overall argument.

Posted from TSR Mobile
It is not at all unrelated and it was merely an aside, it is related in that the people such as yourself who want more liberal drug policies will happily overlook causal links between drug use and deaths and be perfectly happy to increase that figure, meanwhile, make a big deal about a smaller number of people having died after being declared fit for work and determining it is the fault of the department with a grand total of 0 evidence to back it up due to a lack of data present in the publication due to the data needed to bake any real conclusion not being kept on record. Well, then there is still the willful overlooking of the other 48,000 off flows almost certainly constituting the terminally ill where their imminent death is fairly easy to predict, and declaring the 2380 to be part of that group despite less predictable causes being very common in all age groups.


(Original post by Midlander)
Do you think IDS should walk for his department fabricating testimonies from
JSA claimants?


Posted from TSR Mobile
Depends on context, and I would argue that whether he is kept on should depend on results.
0
reply
RollerBall
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#74
Report 4 years ago
#74
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
It is not at all unrelated and it was merely an aside, it is related in that the people such as yourself who want more liberal drug policies will happily overlook causal links between drug use and deaths and be perfectly happy to increase that figure, meanwhile, make a big deal about a smaller number of people having died after being declared fit for work and determining it is the fault of the department with a grand total of 0 evidence to back it up due to a lack of data present in the publication due to the data needed to bake any real conclusion not being kept on record. Well, then there is still the willful overlooking of the other 48,000 off flows almost certainly constituting the terminally ill where their imminent death is fairly easy to predict, and declaring the 2380 to be part of that group despite less predictable causes being very common in all age groups.




Depends on context, and I would argue that whether he is kept on should depend on results.
What? I never said that whatsoever. You've just written out a whole post using arguments I've never stated nor implied.

I agree nothing can be stated from this statistics. Believe me, I am more acquainted with how an examination works and the leading causes of death in each age group - along with at what burden of disease you could be fit/unfit for work.

As stated in this thread previously, the incidence is actually lower than that in the appropriate age ranges for the general population but as no meaningful statistical analysis has been carried out no significant position statements can be made. Everything else is pure conjecture.

However, I am still for more liberal drug policies (note: More liberal does not mean "legalise all drugs" either). These two stances can be held so I don't understand where you're going with this tirade.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
An older student
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#75
Report 4 weeks ago
#75
There are statistics, Bloody statistics and lies. Anyone can use stats for there own good. If anyone needs to be blamed it was Gorden Brown's government, along with the Blair years, that wrecked our economy.
0
reply
RealLifeJoker
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#76
Report 4 weeks ago
#76
Ian Duncan Smith is a national ableist and should be prison for it. Not given a knighthood.
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#77
Report 4 weeks ago
#77
(Original post by An older student)
There are statistics, Bloody statistics and lies. Anyone can use stats for there own good. If anyone needs to be blamed it was Gorden Brown's government, along with the Blair years, that wrecked our economy.
Well done for bumping a 4 year old thread. You were even too dim to fail to realise what the issue was about. Have a medal.
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#78
Report 4 weeks ago
#78
(Original post by An older student)
There are statistics, Bloody statistics and lies. Anyone can use stats for there own good. If anyone needs to be blamed it was Gorden Brown's government, along with the Blair years, that wrecked our economy.
Really?

How.....?

What did Gordon/Tony do or what should they have done?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you ever signed up for an open day and then not gone to it?

Yes (214)
52.84%
No (191)
47.16%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed