I agree that smoke can be unpleasant to non smokers, I would also agree that there should be legally enforceable non smoking areas - equally there should be smoking areas.
Dennis appears to be arguing that I am deliberately ignoring the cost to social services. I'm not, I simply don't have the information, only the NHS figures. As the proponent of the argument Dennis should be able to put a figure on this, but he can't, so typically he avoids the issue & behaves like a cross schoolboy.
Quite possibly John, all I'm asking is for Dennis to tell me how much this cost is. I doubt that it is £5.5 billion a year.
On the other side we should deduct the pension & elderly care costs because smokers die younger in general, and we should deduct the cost of dementure care - smokers rarely suffer from Alzheimer's or Parkinsons - facts that have been suppressed.
Yeah, Brimstone and treacle, wire brush and Dettol. That's the stuff.
Yes, maternity care is good. I always assumed that was because if anything went wrong they could end up paying damages to an individual for the rest of it's life starting at time zero. I remember when my daughter was born in the local maternity hospital fathers attending weren't allowed to buy a meal in the staff canteen without a chitty signed by the ward sister in person, understandably she tended to go missing at meal times. Seemingly she didn't have any more important calls upon her time. LOL
Emergency, (as in heart attack) care is also very good. Episodes in intensive care are not very long and an avoidable bad outcome would be very expensive.
The GP service is very good (around here at any rate) most (all ?) countries don't even attempt to emulate it.
*******************
OTOH a high proportion of their hospitals are literally shitty filthy dumps, and I can not understand the mentality of a person that can just turn up every day and keep on working in such utter squalor.
Smoking has been proven to harm active smokers, but not passive smokers.
That assumes there were any problems to inflict.
I think you will find clear evidence that the manipulation of figures is the perogative of the anti smoking lobby Dennis. The USA claim 35,000 deaths in a population of 305, 000,000, the EU claim 16,000 deaths in a population of
728,000,000. Both cannot be correct.
So, for the umpteenth time, tell me how much this costs? We have £5.5 billion to play with after all.
So, you are now claiming that smoking causes limbs to fall off on a massive scale? No doubt you have scientific evidence to support that claim?
nah I just beg to differ I wont change my opinion you wont change yours so what's the point? theres info to back me up and info back you up but it cannot be all correct, but one thing is 100% correct breathing out just air in a room is not killing anyone, and you cannot say that about smoking with 100% certainty and you never will
Same here, beause the total ban has sent the poor junkies onto the street (what more public place is there?) where there's no escape. If one wants to go through a shop door, an hotel door or (for goodness' sake) a hospital door one has to go through the stink.
It's even more unpleasant when a smoker sits next to one in a waiting room, one can't escape from the stench of his/her clothes, hair and skin without seeming to be rude.
The reason I think it's awful for the mother is because she's been through a lot, is tired and simply wants calm and quiet - which is one of the very best things about a home confinement.
The numbers used bear no relevance to each other and are a good example of the misuse of statistics. Given that you are trying to prove a point, I'll put it down to you being obtuse rather than completely stupid.
You cannot quote deaths as attributed to smoking as a total percentage of the population. It is meaningless.
You want to start by doubling the given figure to make it look better from your perspective (35000 now equals 70000)
You at least want to use compare it relating to the total deaths per year.
You need to know (not guess) what population figures the original samples relate to. I doubt that the Europe figure takes account of a population of
728 million. At best it would only be relating to the EC which is closer to 500 million, But then do these population figures, for a recently enlarged EC also relate to the figures given for deaths now or from some time ago?
To get any sort of real information you also need the percentage of smokers, etc.
For the record, my own view is that you should indeed be allowed to smoke if you want to. But don't do it around me or my kids.
As would going to hospital at all if it were 90 minutes away. I would think the worst place to give birth was in a car up to 45 minutes away from anywhere.
In this situation the midwife could easily be closer than the hospital.
Which risk factors? The ones of a home birth or the ones of faffing about for an hour and a half about driving a woman in labour to hospital?
We're twenty miles from the nearest maternity unit. My next door neighbour had child #1 there and child #2 in the car on the way there. So for child #3, everybody concerned agreed that it would be best to plan for a home birth. Waters broke 5.30am, sprog emerged 6.30am, attending staff went home 7.30am and she was cooking breakfast when the the first two children got up, having slept through the whole thing.
Well true, and I am not suggesting it is perfect by any means, but it does at least attempt to get closer to that ideal than the traditional get yourself to hospital at the first signs of labour routine. Anecdotal reports certainly seemed to rate it over the conventional approach.
What evidence do you have that the statistics mentioned are wrong? And if you are so concerned about NHS resources, should you not be pleased by someone who isn't planning to take up expensive hospital resources?
What makes you think a home birth costs more?
Just an ambulance ride away, as you said.
What sodding business is it of yours?
Of course it is. Mind you, it's the only one in the world. Strange that nobody seems to want to copy it, eh?
And remember that stupid people are more likely than intelligent people (a) to smoke and (b) to become demented, so smoking selectively weeds out those who are most likely to need expensive dementia care.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.