tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7999633524276247455.post3249473667653997516..comments2023-07-04T16:57:28.929+01:00Comments on Where's the Benefit?: News, Numbers and NonsenseLisahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16714918894319998184noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7999633524276247455.post-90906406682430575382011-05-10T15:19:18.683+01:002011-05-10T15:19:18.683+01:00""The researchers say such large changes...""The researchers say such large changes cannot be explained by changes in working practices linked to musculoskeletal problems, and that there were no changes in the criteria used to assess claims.<br /><br />Instead, David Coggon, Medical Research Council professor of occupational medicine at Southampton General Hospital who led the study, suggested it may be to do with people's beliefs and expectations.""<br /><br />(What frightens me is that this guy is let loose anywhere <b>near</b> a hospital environment...)<br /><br />**OR** it just may be due to the injured rump of heavy industry employment aging out of eligibility for IB AND RETIRING, YOU MUPPET!!!DeusExMacintoshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02728119585120029111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7999633524276247455.post-38432408952951079392011-05-10T12:18:38.642+01:002011-05-10T12:18:38.642+01:00"However, during that time there was a widesp..."However, during that time there was a widespread belief that back pain could be long-term and could seriously incapacitate people. <br /><br />Now, people are aware that if they strain a muscle they can be better in a few weeks"<br /><br />I can? Glory be, I'm cured!<br /><br />Or perhaps the truth about disabling musculo-skeletal symptoms is that they're a tiny bit more complex than the article and the 'good' Professor make out.DavidGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11734028655032503805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7999633524276247455.post-61480311500168361792011-05-09T23:35:50.328+01:002011-05-09T23:35:50.328+01:00The article plainly states that claims based on me...The article plainly states that claims based on mental illness "remained steady" and therefore only "overtook" back problems because those numbers fell by 50%. But that's not the impression we're given. I'm wondering if the editors are deliberately setting out to misrepresent, and if so, WHY? What on earth can they hope to gain by doing that?MRadclyffehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17126379767555168530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7999633524276247455.post-25701874417123247532011-05-09T20:37:41.460+01:002011-05-09T20:37:41.460+01:00Ah, so they've realised that the old "FAT...Ah, so they've realised that the old "FATTIES JUNKIES AND DRUNKS R TAKING UR MUNNIES!" schtick isn't going to work, and have now turned to "MUNNIES IS GOING TO 'SAD' PEOPLE AND NUTTERS!!! OMG!!!"<br /><br />Do they honestly think we're that stupid? Daily Mail readers might fall for it, but GB's public, on the whole, can see what they're doing.<br /><br />I eagerly await this strategy falling through, and next week's headline of "80% OF IB CLAIMANTS ARE IN EITHER AL QAEDA OR NAMBLA!!!!"Burtienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7999633524276247455.post-54061777520386236512011-05-09T17:30:33.194+01:002011-05-09T17:30:33.194+01:00Great post, some really good statistics there. I ...Great post, some really good statistics there. I would argue, in the case of people suffering obesity and drug addictions, that they are not incapacitated by those problems, but by whatever is giving them the problems in the first place. I fail to see the point in quoting the symptoms as the illness. <br /><br />The old IB point for alcohol dependency was something like "Needs alcohol before 10am"; I always took that to mean "if you need alcohol before 10am you've got a serious problem that needs addressing, and would probably take precedence over any job you might get". After all, drinking at work, while potentially very dangerous, is not difficult.Jannoreply@blogger.com