According to the ticker that run along the bottom of BBC's News 24 Channel, Professor David Nutt has been forced to resign/has resigned. Maybe I misread it, just thought you might like to know.
Presumably in protest at the fact that they're now going to ban horse-riding, seeing as of how it's so dangerous, innit?
UPDATE It would appear that I totally misread it, oops, nothing to see here.
@ EV, of course you can compare the relative mortality statistics of 'active' and 'passive' activities, why on earth not?
I'm So Glad I Never Clapped For Them...
2 hours ago
10 comments:
His mistake was obviously this:
"In the article, titled "Equasy: An overlooked addiction with implications for the current debate on drug harms", Prof Nutt wrote that "equasy", short for "Equine Addiction Syndrome", had caused 10 deaths and more than 100 road traffic accidents a year."
Passive horse-riding. If that one gains ground, they will have to ban just about anything if they are going to apply the 'passive' threat to alcohol and the obese. Which, of course, they have started trying to do.
Either that or accept that there is a risk to others in all such activities. The righteous seem to be tying themselves in knots :-)
How sad! I hope he will make a decent statement, along the lines of how impossible it is to work in an organization whose recommendations are completely ignored by the amateurs in government.
No confirmation yet as far as I can see on any news source. Maybe you saw "there were calls for him to resign" or similar - which were reported in the original news article.
How can this idiot academic possibly compare the two? They are apples and oranges. Compare horse riding with skiing or motorcycling maybe. And taking ecstacy with smoking or alcohol intake. But to distort an argument by comparing active and passive pastimes is just plain misleading.
But to distort an argument by comparing active and passive pastimes is just plain misleading.
Well, E.V., I re-read your post looking for the irony I was sure was there and still can't see it, so I'll have to assume you're serious.
The comparison is excellent. It's gently mocking, it's witty and it's a useful way of putting up a snapshot of comparative risk.
A bit like wondering why the government publicly and loudly persecute motorists under the banner of 3300 deaths a year on the roads, and says very little about the 8000 people the NHS kills every year because some idle scuzballs can't be bothered to wash their hands or make sure places get cleaned properly.
Motoring deaths and the NHS's internal problems are poles apart in terms of activity but the comparison of outcomes can be useful.
FT, as Remittance Man once said, there are 20 million amateur drivers who kill 3000 people a year and 1 million 'health professionals' who kill 8000 people a year (and then some).
Heh, hadn't thought of it quite that way. Nice one.
> 20 million amateur drivers who kill 3000 people a year and 1 million 'health professionals' who kill 8000 (AT LEAST) people a year
You have to ask how many of the 1 million health professionals killed themselves in the act.
The 3000 deaths include lots of people who only managed to kill themselves (Accidental Suicide).
The 3000 figure should be reduced to those killed by the driver to compare properly with the National Death Service.
AC1, good point, I just couldn't be bothered looking up the numbers.
...you can bet 'they' are going to start having a go at all 'dangerous' sports. If 'they' can convince us that E = Soma the transition to their Brave New World will be well on track.
Post a Comment