Harry Rutter on the benefits of cycling

  • Thread starter Just zis Guy, you know?
  • Start date



On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 08:30:50 +0000 someone who may be Tony Raven
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>But wow! 20-40% reduction in mortality - I just
>hope I make it into the immortal group!

Indeed. That takes one into the realms of religion.

The poster, or whatever it is, has great merits, but claiming
cyclists are immortal is not one of them. Should try harder on the
wording.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.
 
David Hansen wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 08:30:50 +0000 someone who may be Tony Raven
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>
>>But wow! 20-40% reduction in mortality - I just
>>hope I make it into the immortal group!
>
>
> Indeed. That takes one into the realms of religion.
>
> The poster, or whatever it is, has great merits, but claiming
> cyclists are immortal is not one of them. Should try harder on the
> wording.

"Reduction in mortality" is entirely standard usage (not that I have
read the original pdf).

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
 
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:47:08 +0000, David Hansen
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>The poster, or whatever it is, has great merits, but claiming
>cyclists are immortal is not one of them. Should try harder on the
>wording.

He is in public health, where it has a specific meaning (and is used
correctly in context).

Guy
--
"then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels
blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs
onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles
around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales
 
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:03:07 +0900 someone who may be James Annan
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>"Reduction in mortality" is entirely standard usage

Incorrect.

It is however something used by the medical mob and a few related
offshoots. Small scale, usage rather than general usage. My personal
view is that this tells us something about the medical mob's grasp
of English, but that is a separate discussion.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.
 
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:08:55 +0000 someone who may be "Just zis Guy,
you know?" <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>He is in public health, where it has a specific meaning

Though one that is at variance with standard usage.

Of course such things crop up in other contexts. One example is
inflammable. Does this mean something burns easily or it does not
burn? The term is best avoided, which is why the Wiring Regulations
specifically avoids the word.

Another example is that, "in the rear", has a specific meaning in
railway English. That meaning is at variance with what most of the
public would think the meaning is.

I will continue to poke fun at the medical mob. They remain rather
too pompous too often.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>
> He is in public health, where it has a specific meaning (and is used
> correctly in context).
>

But presumably writing for the public, not his colleagues.

Tony
 
David Hansen wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:08:55 +0000 someone who may be "Just zis Guy,
> you know?" <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>
>>He is in public health, where it has a specific meaning
>
My thoroughly standard dictionary (Chambers) defines mortality as
"condition of being mortal: death: frequency or number of deaths, esp.
in proportion to population:..."

In the context given, the first two make the statement in the poster
absurd, so it should be clear that the third is meant.
>
> Though one that is at variance with standard usage.

No. It is *a* standard usage.
>
> Of course such things crop up in other contexts. One example is
> inflammable. Does this mean something burns easily or it does not
> burn? The term is best avoided, which is why the Wiring Regulations
> specifically avoids the word.

Agreed.
>
> Another example is that, "in the rear", has a specific meaning in
> railway English. That meaning is at variance with what most of the
> public would think the meaning is.
>
> I will continue to poke fun at the medical mob. They remain rather
> too pompous too often.
>
So unlike any other profession or close-nit group, then.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap
 
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 16:57:05 +0000 someone who may be JLB
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>> I will continue to poke fun at the medical mob. They remain rather
>> too pompous too often.
>>
>So unlike any other profession or close-nit group, then.

The medical mob are a major part of the road "safety" lobby, who
have made things much worse for a number of groups of people on the
roads in their quest for road "safety" as seen through the
windscreen of their cars.

They have also moved hospitals from convenient locations to fields
in the middle of nowhere, causing difficulties for the same groups
of people they are attacking with their road "safety" hats on.

Not unlike any other group, but deserving of particular ridicule due
to their actions.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.
 
David Hansen wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 16:57:05 +0000 someone who may be JLB
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>
>>>I will continue to poke fun at the medical mob. They remain rather
>>>too pompous too often.
>>>
>>
>>So unlike any other profession or close-nit group, then.
>
Oops. "Close-knit", more like. Though I'm sure there are close-nit
groups too.
>
> The medical mob are a major part of the road "safety" lobby, who
> have made things much worse for a number of groups of people on the
> roads in their quest for road "safety" as seen through the
> windscreen of their cars.

Yes. It looks all a part with their well-recognised empire building over
many decades, such as their insistence on establishing a monopoly of
supplying drugs and their equally ill-conceived battle to ensure that
pregnancy and childbirth are treated as pathological conditions,
allowing them to push midwives to the periphery.
>
> They have also moved hospitals from convenient locations to fields
> in the middle of nowhere, causing difficulties for the same groups
> of people they are attacking with their road "safety" hats on.

I agree this happens too often and with little sign of any consideration
for local or patient needs. My local hospital is the only major hospital
left north of Glasgow / Edinburgh; anyone needing serious long-term
hospital treatment in the north of Scotland, including the various
islands to west and north, will likely end up here, possibly hundreds of
miles from their families and friends. I suppose it makes some sense
financially, and for some specialist treatment, but it also causes much
anguish and hardship. Blaming this situation on the medical profession
however appears not to distinguish at all between the doctors / surgeons
/ nurses and the health authorities / local government / central
government. The latter decide the budgets and how they are spent. They
are the ones who close and merge hospitals. But, this is probably not
the place to dissect the insanity of the Private Finance Initiative etc.
>
> Not unlike any other group, but deserving of particular ridicule due
> to their actions.

Quite possibly, but they could be spared ridicule for the actions of others.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap
 
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:40:18 +0000 someone who may be JLB
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Blaming this situation on the medical profession
>however appears not to distinguish at all between the doctors / surgeons
>/ nurses and the health authorities / local government / central
>government. The latter decide the budgets and how they are spent.

Health authorities are not some separate entity. The medical mob do
occupy many senior positions on such bodies.

Local government has little involvement with the location of
hospitals.

The "health" part of central government does contain many members of
the medical mob.

They cannot escape ridicule by claiming it is nothing to do with
them.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.
 
David Hansen wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:08:55 +0000 someone who may be "Just zis Guy,
> you know?" <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>
>>He is in public health, where it has a specific meaning
>
>
> Though one that is at variance with standard usage.
>
> Of course such things crop up in other contexts. One example is
> inflammable. Does this mean something burns easily or it does not
> burn?

I am not aware of any context in which "inflammable" means it does not burn.

> I will continue to poke fun at the medical mob. They remain rather
> too pompous too often.

Pot, meet kettle.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
 
Tony Raven wrote:

> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> He is in public health, where it has a specific meaning (and is used
>> correctly in context).
>>
>
> But presumably writing for the public, not his colleagues.

Try reading some of the public health stories on the BBC news page. They
all (many) use "mortality" in the same way.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
 
JLB wrote:

> My local hospital is the only major hospital
> left north of Glasgow / Edinburgh;

Are you in Dundee then, or is that just a suburb of Edinburgh as seen
from Inverness?

...d
 
David Hansen wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:40:18 +0000 someone who may be JLB
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>Blaming this situation on the medical profession
>>however appears not to distinguish at all between the doctors / surgeons
>>/ nurses and the health authorities / local government / central
>>government. The latter decide the budgets and how they are spent.
>
> Health authorities are not some separate entity.

A curious claim. While there are plenty of links between them (hence the
words "at all" to qualify my words above, to make it clear I was arguing
for a degree of distinction, not suggesting there was no connection at
all) I would be interested to see how you would show that health
authorities are not separate from the medical profession.

The medical mob do
> occupy many senior positions on such bodies.

Indeed. So do accountants. Would you also say the accountancy profession
is not a separate entity from health authorities?

> Local government has little involvement with the location of
> hospitals.

More's the pity, but true. Local government has ceased to mean much more
than local management delivering central government policy.

> The "health" part of central government does contain many members of
> the medical mob.

.... and members of the legal mob, and more than a few teachers.

> They cannot escape ridicule by claiming it is nothing to do with
> them.

However, the ridicule should be aimed at them while they are wearing the
hat that fits the circumstance. A doctor, as a doctor and thereby a
member of the medical profession, does not get to decide where a new
hospital will go or who will get the contract. A doctor who happens to
be a government minister or a senior member of a health authority might
do so, but only in that capacity.

Perhaps you have heard of Richard Taylor?
http://www.healthconcern.org.uk/
The history link has all the background.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap
 
David Martin wrote:
> JLB wrote:
>
>> My local hospital is the only major hospital left north of Glasgow /
>> Edinburgh;
>
>
> Are you in Dundee then, or is that just a suburb of Edinburgh as seen
> from Inverness?

Ummm. Sorry. My claim that it's the sole big hospital was overly grand
and not supported by the facts. However, it is true that people are
brought here from as far away the Western Isles, Shetland and Orkney,
which is a very long distance compared to what people would expect in
England.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap
 
JLB wrote:
> David Martin wrote:
>
>> JLB wrote:
>>
>>> My local hospital is the only major hospital left north of Glasgow /
>>> Edinburgh;
>>
>>
>>
>> Are you in Dundee then, or is that just a suburb of Edinburgh as seen
>> from Inverness?
>
>
> Ummm. Sorry. My claim that it's the sole big hospital was overly grand
> and not supported by the facts.
That's got you out of a lynching by the east coast mafia.. Only big
hospital north of the great glen though ..

> However, it is true that people are
> brought here from as far away the Western Isles, Shetland and Orkney,
> which is a very long distance compared to what people would expect in
> England.

It does seem out of sorts to have people shipped the equivalent of Kent
to Cornwall for what most people would regard as basic medical services.

Unfortunately there is no simple and easy solution to the provision of
care. It isn't just a question of money.

...d
 
James Annan wrote:
> I am not aware of any context in which "inflammable" means it does not
> burn.

The prefix "in" generally negates the rest of the word in English. Not
always admittedly but where it has an effect on a word, the effect is
always negation. Except for "inflammable" where it has no effect at all.
I think that was the point being made (And I have no doubt that I've
just confused the issue further).

Jon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
HARRY BROGAN PREDICTS MID WEST FLOODING
Replies
0
Views
404
UK and Europe
datakoll
D
T
Harry Hall dies
Replies
3
Views
731
UK and Europe
Tony Raven
T
M
Re: Prince Harry's children?
Replies
0
Views
363
UK and Europe
Mary Fisher Is Never Wrong
M
M
Re: Prince Harry's children?
Replies
0
Views
297
UK and Europe
Mary Fisher Is Never Wrong
M
M
Re: Prince Harry's children?
Replies
0
Views
434
UK and Europe
Mary Fisher Is Never Wrong
M
Top Bottom Back