3 ms·

I think we are allowed to use common sense. I think it’s pretty safe to say that everyone has some kind of health condition, but there’s no way that one in five

I think we are allowed to use common sense. I think it’s pretty safe to say that everyone has some kind of health condition, but there’s no way that one in five working adults has a health condition so bad that they cannot work. If I truly could not work, I would want the slackers rooted out too, otherwise they will destroy supports for the people that actually need them.

SideburnsOfDoom 1y ago
> but there’s no way that one in five working adults has a health condition so bad that they cannot work. I would go further, I would also say that there are no "working adults" who also "cannot work". You don't see ill people walking around? Yes, that's how it works, it doesn't prove anything. We're not seeing what we don't see, and can't draw "common sense" inferences from that missing data. You need actual studies.
- gruez 1y ago
  >I would go further, I would also say that there are no "working adults" who also "cannot work". He probably meant "working age adults".
  - SideburnsOfDoom 1y ago
    Sure, but the point remains - they say that know it's wrong because they see a representative sample of working age adults? No, we actually don't: There is strong selection bias by definition of the difference between "of working age" and actually "working". The ones unable to work are less publicly visible.
mytailorisrich 1y ago
Exactly. Why are millions of young adults suddenly unable to work for health reasons? Either there are real health issues and then this should be an emergency situation to find and address the causes, and this proposal is totally inadequate. Or there are no serious health issues (which, indeed sounds more plausible) and this proposal misses the point and is a waste of money. Real underlying causes of the situation should be identified and addressed nevertheless. Cynically, we can notice that this keeps the official unemployment rate low since people "economically inactive" do not count, and we can wonder what would happen if those 3+ million were suddenly to look for work...
- SideburnsOfDoom 11mo ago
  > Either there are real health issues and then this should be an emergency situation to find and address the causes It's a mystery. We may never know what caused a steep and broad rise in ill health during the pandemic. /s
  - mytailorisrich 11mo ago
    The pandemic was 5 years ago and Covid was and is very mild in younger people. So many younger people officially unfit to work is not due to Covid and I am very skeptical that this is really "health" as I explained. So do you have anything substantive to share on this instead of taking government statements at face value and snarks in replies?
    - SideburnsOfDoom 11mo ago
      > The pandemic was 5 years ago 1) it is absurd to consider the pandemic as a point in time in the past. It has abated, but there are still new cases today, and ongoing consequences of older cases. "it happened 5 years ago" is simplistic to the point of being nonsensical. 2) The report states "Today there are nearly 800,000 or 40% more people of working-age who are economically inactive for health reasons than there were in 2019." So it's a change since in 2019. The time frame fits. > is very mild in younger people Always? Blanket statements like this are not accurate. > So do you have anything substantive to share on this instead of taking statements at face value I did not "accept it at face value". My point is: here is data in need of explanation. A possible explanation is that "is very mild in younger people" is not true often enough to matter. I am amazed at people's ability to not even consider the obvious simple explanation - not accept it, but not even consider it or talk about it - and rather leap to ignoring the elephant in the room, and denying the validity of the data as first choice. Correlation is not causation, but if it's not the cause then that should be conclusion reached only after investigating and ruling out the glaringly obvious. > I am very skeptical that this is really "health" That is a extra-ordinary statement, with zero evidence. If you can't provide that, we can dismiss it out of hand. > taking government statements at face value Please, no snark. The UK isn't the USA, statements from public health bodies can't be dismissed by using "government statements" as an implied slur. Your explanation "it's not health" is a political one, and so you imply that this does not come from you - that the number is itself pollical.
squigz 11mo ago
If you truly could not work, you might not be so eager to jump to conclusions about who "actually needs" support.

SideburnsOfDoom 1y ago

> but there’s no way that one in five working adults has a health condition so bad that they cannot work. I would go further, I would also say that there are no "working adults" who also "cannot work". You don't see ill people walking around? Yes, that's how it works, it doesn't prove anything. We're not seeing what we don't see, and can't draw "common sense" inferences from that missing data. You need actual studies.

gruez 1y ago
>I would go further, I would also say that there are no "working adults" who also "cannot work". He probably meant "working age adults".
- SideburnsOfDoom 1y ago
  Sure, but the point remains - they say that know it's wrong because they see a representative sample of working age adults? No, we actually don't: There is strong selection bias by definition of the difference between "of working age" and actually "working". The ones unable to work are less publicly visible.

mytailorisrich 1y ago

Exactly. Why are millions of young adults suddenly unable to work for health reasons? Either there are real health issues and then this should be an emergency situation to find and address the causes, and this proposal is totally inadequate. Or there are no serious health issues (which, indeed sounds more plausible) and this proposal misses the point and is a waste of money. Real underlying causes of the situation should be identified and addressed nevertheless. Cynically, we can notice that this keeps the official unemployment rate low since people "economically inactive" do not count, and we can wonder what would happen if those 3+ million were suddenly to look for work...

SideburnsOfDoom 11mo ago
> Either there are real health issues and then this should be an emergency situation to find and address the causes It's a mystery. We may never know what caused a steep and broad rise in ill health during the pandemic. /s
- mytailorisrich 11mo ago
  The pandemic was 5 years ago and Covid was and is very mild in younger people. So many younger people officially unfit to work is not due to Covid and I am very skeptical that this is really "health" as I explained. So do you have anything substantive to share on this instead of taking government statements at face value and snarks in replies?
  - SideburnsOfDoom 11mo ago
    > The pandemic was 5 years ago 1) it is absurd to consider the pandemic as a point in time in the past. It has abated, but there are still new cases today, and ongoing consequences of older cases. "it happened 5 years ago" is simplistic to the point of being nonsensical. 2) The report states "Today there are nearly 800,000 or 40% more people of working-age who are economically inactive for health reasons than there were in 2019." So it's a change since in 2019. The time frame fits. > is very mild in younger people Always? Blanket statements like this are not accurate. > So do you have anything substantive to share on this instead of taking statements at face value I did not "accept it at face value". My point is: here is data in need of explanation. A possible explanation is that "is very mild in younger people" is not true often enough to matter. I am amazed at people's ability to not even consider the obvious simple explanation - not accept it, but not even consider it or talk about it - and rather leap to ignoring the elephant in the room, and denying the validity of the data as first choice. Correlation is not causation, but if it's not the cause then that should be conclusion reached only after investigating and ruling out the glaringly obvious. > I am very skeptical that this is really "health" That is a extra-ordinary statement, with zero evidence. If you can't provide that, we can dismiss it out of hand. > taking government statements at face value Please, no snark. The UK isn't the USA, statements from public health bodies can't be dismissed by using "government statements" as an implied slur. Your explanation "it's not health" is a political one, and so you imply that this does not come from you - that the number is itself pollical.

squigz 11mo ago

If you truly could not work, you might not be so eager to jump to conclusions about who "actually needs" support.