You just fell in the hole.
This article represents precisely the kind of reporting (read mass-media dis-information) that leads nowhere but division. Look at its origins (The London Daily Telegraph) and references; purely conservative (and not in the sense that we know and love) and far from unbiased, it's a Rupert Mourdoch-owned company. Heavily biased media in either side of the balance doesn't represent truth or our interests, it represents the interests of greed and power. Nothing of merit to see here; it is only factual in the sense that "everything you read on the internet is true."
You just fell in the hole.
This article represents precisely the kind of reporting (read mass-media dis-information) that leads nowhere but division. Look at its origins (The London Daily Telegraph) and references; purely conservative (and not in the sense that we know and love) and far from unbiased, it's a Rupert Mourdoch-owned company. Heavily biased media in either side of the balance doesn't represent truth or our interests, it represents the interests of greed and power. Nothing of merit to see here; it is only factual in the sense that "everything you read on the internet is true."
Channel 4 is a publicly-owned, commercially-funded public service broadcaster. We do not receive any public funding and have a remit to be innovative, experimental and distinctive. Channel 4 works across television, film and digital media to deliver our public service remit, as outlined in the 2003 Communications Act and most recently the 2010 Digital Economy Act.
You just fell in the hole.
This article represents precisely the kind of reporting (read mass-media dis-information) that leads nowhere but division. Look at its origins (The London Daily Telegraph) and references; purely conservative (and not in the sense that we know and love) and far from unbiased, it's a Rupert Mourdoch-owned company. Heavily biased media in either side of the balance doesn't represent truth or our interests, it represents the interests of greed and power. Nothing of merit to see here; it is only factual in the sense that "everything you read on the internet is true."
You just fell in the hole.
This article represents precisely the kind of reporting (read mass-media dis-information) that leads nowhere but division.
Therefore, it's worth noting that the mortality rates presented in the data reflect death rates in hospitals and not among people who die outside hospital. It is possible that the poorer groups in society could fare equally well in the NHS, or even better, than they would do in the US.Further, the differences in the way healthcare systems are paid for in the US can potentially have an influence on the way episodes of healthcare are recorded.
It should also be noted that high HSMRs should not automatically be taken as an indicator that all hospital care is poor.
Professor Jarman notes in his report that compared with several of the other countries examined, England has:
- poorer cancer survival
- longer waiting lists
- lower patient input, with only a small proportion of hospital complaints formally investigated
- lower GP out-of-hours on-call service
- lower rates of services, including lower use of diagnostic procedures such as MRI, heart surgery, and lower immunisation rates
- a lower number of doctors per bed and per 1,000 population
- a lower number of acute beds per 1,000 population
I'd be careful drawing any major conclusions. From the NHS site linked by netsecurity:
On the opposite side of the coin:
Does anyone know if the UK has hospice and nursing home care like the US? People who are beyond saving here are often transferred outside of the hospital where they eventually die.
The company, CHKS, advertised to NHS trusts that it had reduced by a third the mortality rate at one hospital, which is now being investigated for its high death rates. The reduction was achieved by categorising patients so that their deaths were seen as unavoidable and had less impact on mortality league tables.
The disclosure will lead to concerns that practices exposed at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, where 1,200 people died unnecessarily, were more widespread than previously thought.
The presentation, if not the interpretation, of the material presented was undeniably biased by the source. Statistics are very... plastic. And variables, like where terminal patients are sent to die, do affect the statistical picture dramatically. Experts are still looking at this very critically. As lay people in the scientific world, We too should be sceptical.
The presentation, if not the interpretation, of the material presented was undeniably biased by the source. Statistics are very... plastic. And variables, like where terminal patients are sent to die, do affect the statistical picture dramatically. Experts are still looking at this very critically. As lay people in the scientific world, We too should be sceptical.
Google (well, Startpage actually) is still your friend. Just one of many, incidentally from the same sources used to refute the point. See here: Keogh review into 14 NHS hospitals did not find disaster on scale of Mid Staffs | Society | theguardian.com
Presented are some very credible reasons, both to be vigilant and to be skeptical. We are too quick to hop on the train to blame a system rather than ensuring that the data is apples to apples, and that it's not being misinterpreted (and not necessarily with any agenda, statistics once again are tricky and malleable.) Our system is broken, their's may be damaged, both are fixable and neither alone are the answer.
Also, it isn't raw data. It has been reduced and analyzed and had recommendations made based on its veracity. The raw data needs to be looked at through other filters, it is amazingly easy to unintentionally skew data in any of the steps and bears further scrutiny.
Just like our "global warming" debates. the initial knee jerk to the statistical models didn't grab all of us up. When we questioned it aloud we were shouted down. Just now are other scientists looking at arguments that we presented a decade ago that influence the interpretation of the data, in ways that are yielding results that do not support the forgone theoretical conclusion of man-made climate change.
Google (well, Startpage actually) is still your friend. Just one of many, incidentally from the same sources used to refute the point. See here: Keogh review into 14 NHS hospitals did not find disaster on scale of Mid Staffs | Society | theguardian.com
Presented are some very credible reasons, both to be vigilant and to be skeptical. We are too quick to hop on the train to blame a system rather than ensuring that the data is apples to apples, and that it's not being misinterpreted (and not necessarily with any agenda, statistics once again are tricky and malleable.) Our system is broken, their's may be damaged, both are fixable and neither alone are the answer.
Also, it isn't raw data. It has been reduced and analyzed and had recommendations made based on its veracity. The raw data needs to be looked at through other filters, it is amazingly easy to unintentionally skew data in any of the steps and bears further scrutiny.
Just like our "global warming" debates. the initial knee jerk to the statistical models didn't grab all of us up. When we questioned it aloud we were shouted down. Just now are other scientists looking at arguments that we presented a decade ago that influence the interpretation of the data, in ways that are yielding results that do not support the forgone theoretical conclusion of man-made climate change.