The battle over public health
Wednesday, September 2, 2009 In addition to our own fringe events (see below), I have been invited to speak at a meeting organised by Policy Exchange at next month's Conservative conference.
Other speakers include Dr Tammy Boyce (King's Fund) and Mark Simmonds MP (shadow minister for health) and the meeting is described thus:
"Seatbelts and smoking: two of the best proven examples that effective interventions in public health have been regulations. The most effective alcohol policies are those that use measures addressed at the whole population (price and availability). Do we have to penalize the majority, those who drink responsibly for example, to change behaviour in the minority? The rising tide of obesity has prompted more spend on societal marketing campaigns with little evidence base for their effectiveness. What can we do to tackle this public health time bomb?"
If you're coming to Manchester and want to pop along, the meeting is at the Novotel Centre on Tuesday 6th October at 8.00am.
That's right: 8.00am. Not so keen now, are you?
Reader Comments (16)
In the spirit of the New House Rules, couldn't you have trimmed that down a bit, Simon? To something like:
Come and hear me and Tammy Boyce and Mark Simmonds talk about obesity at the Manchester Novotel Centre on Tuesday 6th October, 8.00am sharp.
Or better still:
Hear me, Boyce, & Simmonds on fatties. Manchester Novotel 8am 6 Oct.
Less is more. Short is the new long.
No need for these logos and photos either. One word is worth a thousand pictures.
"The rising tide of obesity has prompted more spend on societal marketing campaigns with little evidence base for their effectiveness. What can we do to tackle this public health time bomb?"
In my humble opinion, give autonomy back to the people and stop bullying us, we might just be able to lead happier, more contented lives then so will not be turning to much to drink and junk food for comfort and a way to rebel!
With regard to ""Seatbelts and smoking: two of the best proven examples that effective interventions in public health have been regulations." - At least with the seat belt law you can get a medical exemption, which I have had since the inception of this law; unfortunately we can't exercise that 'right' regarding the smoking ban - if nothing else there should be many elderly people and people in mental hospitals who should most definitely be exempt!
The rising tide of obesity has prompted more spend on societal marketing campaigns with little evidence base for their effectiveness. What can we do to tackle this public health time bomb?"
Change the BMI figure for obese from 30 to 35 problem solved, Simples.
----
If I was a joyless puritan and wanted to organise and win a debate on the evils of pleasure, I would run it at 8:00 am. That would keep out most late night revellers and those who did turn up would be more subdued than normal.
I noticed that 'This event has been kindly sponsored by Alliance Boots'.
Just an observation.
Well, if they think smoking bans were one of the best interventions in public health, one has to ask which world they are living in? Cameron's proposed increased tax on alcohol is truly stupid as it will simply mean a booming black market and the government loosing revenue.
See the boom in cigarette smuggling:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/6110778/Revealed-2bn-cost-to-UK-from-cigarette-smuggling.html
Frankly, I have absolutely no faith in the tone of a coming Cameron administration. He's a conceited prat who doesn't listen and I shall continue to vote for UKIP.
I could attend that meeting. I live close to Manchester. Is there any point in asking why the meeting is scheduled for 8am?
Suppose that I say that the 8am start is all about 'preliminaries'?
Simon. It saddens me that you can believe that we are all totally stupid. All you need to do is say that there are things happening that it would be better that we plebs should not know about for the time being.
For me, that is not a problem. All I want is SOME relaxation of the smoking ban.
Heard on the radio yesterday that depression is predicted to be the most common illness in the coming years, with billions lost in productivity and spent on treatment.
Perhaps Government should be looking at the links between its policies and the mental health of the population.
"Seatbelts and smoking: two of the best proven examples that effective interventions in public health have been regulations."
Translation: "If the Public doesn't do want WE want, then we can MAKE them."
"There'll be bluebirds over
The White Cliffs of Dover........."
OR
"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer !"
Such tricky choices we have to make these days.
Well said Joyce, the only problem is that the government are NOT spending any money on helping those of us with mental health problems caused by themselves or any other reason!
Appropriate treatment/therapy is totally a postcode lottery; in some areas of the UK you can get 3 years of continuous therapy on the NHS, in other areas you can't get any!
You are absolutely right to say that the government should looking at the links between its policies and the mental health of the population.
Of course, one of their policies is to get more people off long term sick and back into work, "particularly those with mental health issues", but they are doing this by making it nigh on impossible to be signed off work for any length of time, making any benefits harder to get and fewer, so exacerbating mental health problems for those who really cannot work and not increasing funding for the mental health side of the NHS, so when those who have been on long term sick and possibly receiving treatment are forced back into work, there will be no available treatment for them!
Perhaps Parliament is really the new asylum and we should lock them all inside and get on with our lives whilst they rot! I honestly cannot see the country being served any worse if it were run by genuinely diagnosed lunatics!
BTW, Lyn, congrats on your new job
Whwn the set-belt law came in ,I bought a 1958 Morris..exempt from the law
Why can't traditional street-corners pubs enjoy a similar exemption? Leaving the non-smoking do-gooders to their souless wine-bar/ eateris
John,
You raise a valid point.
In the USA, around New York, there are bars which are considered to be 'Native American'( ie. red indians) bars. There must be something in the constitution of the USA which, by implication, because these people were there before the Europeans arrived, permits them to decide for themselves. These bars are exempt from the general prohibition of smoking.
This may well be a bit of a red (indian) herring, but it is certainly worth a thought or two.
How about our very ancient rights to act as a free people? How about the idea that only places which are outside, in the fresh air, can be described as 'public places'? All other places are 'private' places, to be governed by rules created by the people who own the private places?
Food for thought?.
John -
You are rash enough to ask:
"Why can't traditional street-corners pubs enjoy a similar exemption? "
Because, if people are given a CHOICE, then some of them will CHOOSE.
And we can't have THAT.......................
There'd be blood on the pavement - followed by widespread social collapse.
Wouldn't there ?
Junican. When the USA finally drew up a constitution concerning the indigenous people (American Indians), they were alloted pieces of land and buildings and given cash to keep their own indigenous communities together. Part of this constitution was that they had freedom, independance, and a certain amount of self government. It is true that under these laws Indian reservations are exempt from the smoking ban. I assume that the same rules apply to buildings/premises owned by American Indians.
It is the same in Canada. One of the problems the Canadian Government have is that they have raised prices of cigarettes, but they cannot stop people from going into reservations and buying them from Indians, who grow their own tobacco, have small cigarette factories and sell them a lot cheaper.
In all comes down to the 'one rule fits all' diktat that the govt are operating under to cope with the exploding and diverce population growth since the expansion of the dreaded EU and the divide and conquer mentality that makes
the first victims that always suffer the consequences are the indigenous population.
Its not that I am totally anti EU, but its the way that its heading in its present form that I am totally against and it aint ever going to work.
England was always known the world over for its humanity and sense of fair play for all but since they took on Brussels mantle they have abandoned their britishness for the 7 pieces of silver.
And the english people in the long run will never stand for it.
I look forward to being recognised as part of the indigenous population of the UK with appropriate exemptions and priveleges....