I know that we live in one of the most unequal countries in the world, but even knowing that, these are pretty shocking stats. Unsurprisingly, only the US is worse
The difference between the point at which people are no longer healthy in deprived areas and wealthy area is 20 years. 20 YEARS?!!
The worst place was Blackpool, where you can only expect to live a 'healthy' life (defined as free of illness or disability) until the age of 51, then its all seriously downhill.
Apparently the major reasons for the decline are mental health issues, isolation and stress (largely over finances)
yes just been discussed on Radio 4 at lunchtime news, and here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20q07w3gl9o
as a 58 year old with various health conditions it's quite sobering reading... no prospect of retirement for me anytime soon!
The worst place was Blackpool, where you can only expect to live a 'healthy' life (defined as free of illness or disability) until the age of 51, then its all seriously downhill.
4 more years for me then 👌😎
work in a large GP practice, none of this surprises me TBH. The disconnect between how people live and their health seems as wide as ever it was. Spoke with our diabetes nurse on Friday and were comparing the highest HbA1C (blood sugar measurement) we'd come across that day as i was sorting out some bits and bobs for the start of one of our annual incentive schemes, I'd seen one at 120, his patient was 150 he'd seen that afternoon. For comparison - normal is below 42.
Folks are eating to much energy dense food, drinking too much booze and there's too many folks with S.L.S. There's a mental health crisis going largely unreported, and it's only getting worse.
Edit: used to run an ophthalmology service in Blackpool, and honestly the divide between the very very desperate parts that are literally next door to the very very wealthy parts is more extreme than anywhere else I know
Folks are eating to much energy dense food, drinking too much booze and there's too many folks with S.L.S. There's a mental health crisis going largely unreported, and it's only getting worse.There is of course an underyling assumption to life expectance statistics that living a LONG life is a good thing. If its a miserable life it might not be. The HLE is based on a self perceived scale of "very good to very bad" health isn't it? It might be useful but it might be better to have something less subjective. e.g. is someone with Type 1 diabetes who actually lives and functions completely normally in "good health" or someone who has some health anxiety but physiologically has nothing really wrong with them but worries that they do? Perhaps none of that really matters for highlighting health inequalities.
wander how that compares to a subgroup such as club cyclists. And yes a good percentage is also luck as I tell my 99 year old dad.
I used to joke about this when one of my militantly Vegan friends used to tell me that every burger was taking 'x' years off my life and I would quip that it's only taking the rubbish years off the end, not the good years off the beginning! Ironically I'm now vegetarian and have a largely healthy lifestyle, and they're unfortunately dealing with the fallout a youth spent not eating meat but ingesting many other substances that were probably worse for them longer term.
What's sobering really is that there will be a lot of people who's "healthy" lifespan is much shorter than their working lifespan, so it's understandable why so many "youngsters" are taking the route of travelling and enjoying their twenties/thirties rather than gearing their whole life around a dream of a happy and prosperous retirement that might never materialise.
TBH This is always the biggest YMMV of your life 🙂
There is of course an underyling assumption to life expectance statistics that living a LONG life is a good thing
Yes, true, that is the assumption. The difference I'd say now is that we're seeing patients in their 30-40's that have the sorts of issues that used to only show up in people in their 50's and 60's. I think there's a fair assumption that you'd have something broadly defined as "good health" that only starts to decline as one gets towards the end of your life. Now GPs see folks on recall lists with diseases that used to be considered as 'old people' illnesses (type 2 diabetes, hypertension, CKD, stroke, heart disease) at a younger and younger age.
What's sobering really is that there will be a lot of people who's "healthy" lifespan is much shorter than their working lifespan,
there's only really been one generation that lucked out into a large number of them (not all of them by any means) being able to enjoy a decade or more of healthy, able bodied retirement.
Unfortunately their win has given everyone else quite an unobtainable vision of their future.
No male on my dad's side has ever made it past 68. Planned increase to state pension age is to be 68 by 2046.
Unfortunately their win has given everyone else quite an unobtainable vision of their future.
Surely there nobody left (apart from a tiny, wealthy minority) who are harboring any delusions that their retirements are going to resemble those presently being enjoyed by the boomers?
If so, I think they're in for a rude awakening. As you said, that was a pure one-off, never to be repeated deal.
I suppose it makes perfect sense that health outcomes will inevitably decline, in line with financial ones?
its the financial inequality that creates much of this. I'd be interested in similar stats for egalitarian societies like the Scandinavian countries.
The right wing begger your neighbour policies we have been under since the 70s have done so much damage to the UK
Major contributing factor the locality of multiple Greggs, greater == shorter?
As binners was the OP I felt I had to.
Unfortunately their win has given everyone else quite an unobtainable vision of their future.
Surely there nobody left (apart from a tiny, wealthy minority) who are harboring any delusions that their retirements are going to resemble those presently being enjoyed by the boomers?
Depends on the boomer. I (Gen X) expect that my retirement will at least exceed those of my "boomer" parents (they mostly don't conform to the stereotype). It may also not be vastly different from my much more stereotypical boomer MIL and FIL (depending how long I can be bothered to work for). Difficult to judge how my Gen Z children will fair, but I'd expect they will do similarly to us because they've had it drummed into them that pension investments are not just something for old people to think about.
am i a boomer? born 1961
all that generational hoarded welth theboomers have has to go somewhere. Folk will get inheritances in their 50s and 60s so the kids of the rich boomers will be ok
https://simd.scot/#/simd2020/BTTTFTT/9/-4.0000/55.9000/
I loved in Maryhill Glasgow when it had one of the lowest life expectancy rates in Europe (203/2004).
A short walk away was Kelvin grove with a+20 life expectancy.
Surely not much of this is new news? A 20 year life expectancy gap is caused by a whole host of health issues
all that generational hoarded welth theboomers have has to go somewhere. Folk will get inheritances in their 50s and 60s so the kids of the rich boomers will be ok
It will got to care homes most likely. well north of £1k a week for quite basic arrangement. Double that if you need actual care rather than just laundry and catering.
its only a minority end up in care homes
Makes me think a bit of sacrifice now is worth it now to allow me to retire at 55 (or 56 if the early retirement age increments with the pension age to 68 as I don't think my ISA will bridge two years). Would be interesting to know the stats for fitter people tho.
To me it would be more interesting to know what age people's health starts(ed) limiting their ability to work, or requiring them to structure their life around their condition rather than manage their condition around their life.There is of course an underyling assumption to life expectance statistics that living a LONG life is a good thing
Yes, true, that is the assumption. The difference I'd say now is that we're seeing patients in their 30-40's that have the sorts of issues that used to only show up in people in their 50's and 60's. I think there's a fair assumption that you'd have something broadly defined as "good health" that only starts to decline as one gets towards the end of your life.
No doubt there are lifestyle, diet, social factors involved - but there is possibly also a greater level of awareness and diagnosis. Better diagnosis and treatment also means that things which killed people young, become chronic health conditions instead.Now GPs see folks on recall lists with diseases that used to be considered as 'old people' illnesses (type 2 diabetes, hypertension, CKD, stroke, heart disease) at a younger and younger age.
Its interesting because if you asked me I am in "Good Health" but suffer from hypertension which you've cited as an old person illness - it has absolutely zero impact on my life. My wife is T1D but would probably take offence if anyone told her she was in "Poor health" - she's probably "healthier" in terms of diet and activity than most people her age. The problem with single dimensional statistics is they tell you so little about the population.
My wife is T1D
T2D is a completely different thing to T1; and is 'mostly' a lifestyle disease, lots of folks with it are pretty poorly with other things as well - obesity, liver damage/disease, cholesterol issues. There's a reason hypertension is called the 'silent killer'
It's simpler than that. The problem with statistics they apply to noone but everyone.
It will got to care homes most likely. well north of £1k a week for quite basic arrangement. Double that if you need actual care rather than just laundry and catering.
Yep. That’s where we are at the moment with my MIL and we’re not unusual. 4k+ a month is the reality (with no medical/care needs), which has been financed by the sale of her house.
The reality is that there won’t be many people inheriting anything.
Getting back to the original health status, there’s going to be a huge cost to society if people are going to be getting sicker earlier in every larger numbers and requiring care from an ever younger age
Again - its only a minority that end up in care homes and a minority of them that use the whole house value up
We’re not talking about ‘care homes’ as no ‘care’ is required. We’re talking about retirement villages or whatever you want to call them. There are plenty of people in the same situation as us. If it’s a minority, as you say, it’s one that’s growing massively year on year.
Do the maths and its easy enough to see how rapidly the proceeds of any house sale disappears at a rate of 4k+ a month
Its certainly not everyone. (and I'm assuming TJ is more knowledgeable than me on this matter)
But its still a significant number meaning that GenX and Millenials relying on inheriting in their 50s as their retirement fund is not really a foolproof financial plan, however well off your parents appear currently.
Getting back on topic, but obviously related… if there’s a steady increase in people becoming economically inactive in their early 50’s and very likely requiring care, the implications for wider society are huge!
Again - its only a minority that end up in care homes
Getting smaller ( as a % of the population) as well I understand
relying on inheritance is of course daft but many folk will get significant cash increasing inequality. im in favour of very high inheritance tax used to provide comprehensive old age care free at the poj t of use.
old age care is expensive. it hastobe paid for somehow. inherited wealth is a huge driver of inequality
Me and my pal Iain live in the two town centre wards of Middlesbrough.The average age of male death was 55.The only reason we are alive is because we weren't born here. Lads I know of around here will be damned lucky to make it to 55.Just to add to the laughs my family are from Maryhill!q😁
I saw the BBC article yesterday, tbh it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that the HLE has decreased. When I was growing up in the late 60's/70's, we had meals made at home. People used to walk to the shops, or used public transport. A fat person was a freak, these days its the norm, with supermarkets churning out cheap junk foods, discounted soft drinks and booze. McDonald's have become a go to for most families.
Question is, how do you make up for 30/40 years of decline and re-educate people to make healthier/more time consuming choices?
https://simd.scot/#/simd2020/BTTTFTT/9/-4.0000/55.9000/
I loved in Maryhill Glasgow when it had one of the lowest life expectancy rates in Europe (203/2004).
A short walk away was Kelvin grove with a+20 life expectancy.
Surely not much of this is new news? A 20 year life expectancy gap is caused by a whole host of health issues
I lived in both as a student. The grinding poverty in Maryhill I saw firsthand just sucks the hope out of people, and all that is left for them is drink, drugs and fast food to take the horror away.
when it’s a choice of a bottle of buckfast and a packet of instant noodles, or a trip to the supermarket only to get similar cheap junk sold to you, it’s a pretty easy choice. Bucky and noodles.
im in favour of very high inheritance tax used to provide comprehensive old age care free at the poj t of use.
I want to see inheritance taxes increased to reduce generational wealth inequalities. I'm not sure that our priority as a country should be throwing yet more funding at a generation (Boomers) now entering their final years that tend to demand state provision for all their needs with the expectation that they shouldn't/won't have to directly pay for it themselves.
As a country we are not providing enough help for the next couple of generations and decisions that happened in their lifetimes - 2008 financial crash, COVID Brexit, endless foreign wars, for example that they had zero influence on, continue to have an impact on their lives.
with a limited social service budget, I would prefer to use that money for new housing, reduction in tertiary educational fees, and support for working families and mental health support.
Major contributing factor the locality of multiple Greggs, greater == shorter?
As binners was the OP I felt I had to.
TBH, Greggs isn’t necessarily a particularly unhealthy diet, if you mix it up a bit.
People get obsessed over diets and diet fads are a weekly occurrence.
Granny DoD lived till 95 and her favourite staple was lard on a chunk of white bread.
People get obsessed over diets and diet fads are a weekly occurrence.
The difference here of course, is that your granny's lard isn't actually 'that' bad for you, it's mostly mono-saturated, has reasonably high VitD content and contains less saturated fat than butter. Probably better than highly processed stuff from Greggs
I'm not sure what your point was? I am well aware of the differences. The question is - is a self scored assessment of "healthy" even a sensible metric? Even the overweight T2D might not tick the poor health box if they think its not really impacting them, but someone who clinically has very little wrong with them but perceives themselves as being unhealthy might. Is that even bad? if people realise two years earlier that its time for a lifestyle change - perhaps its a good thing?My wife is T1D
T2D is a completely different thing to T1; and is 'mostly' a lifestyle disease, lots of folks with it are pretty poorly with other things as well - obesity, liver damage/disease, cholesterol issues. There's a reason hypertension is called the 'silent killer'
there's too many folks with S.L.S.
Sorry, what's "SLS"?
A 20 year life expectancy gap is caused by a whole host of [health] wealth issues
Yes, everyone has choices... but we don't all have the same choices... and the reason for that is wealth inequality. We need to fix that root cause as an absolute priority, not just worry about how we fund fixing all the symptoms.
is a self scored assessment of "healthy" even a sensible metric?
Yes. When you are using the results to compare demographics rather than as any kind of diagnostic tool. Also... what it shows is also available for us to see within the NHS system and from other surveys. It's not an outlying statistic. It's reaffirming what is already known.
am i a boomer? born 1961yes! The recognised "cut off" in 1964. Of course with generational cut offs these things are never really clear cut, in the US they have a special sub category of young boomers called "Generation Jones" which I think is about keeping up with the Jones' which is as far from TJ as I can imagine!
So stats are sensible if they tell us what we think we already know? I'm not suggesting is an outlying statistic - but rather questioning if we actually know what it means. I think your statement confirms my fear - "reaffirms" our existing biases. I'm not for one minute suggesting we are becoming healthier - but I just don't know what the distinction is between good health and poor health which is used in this analysis.is a self scored assessment of "healthy" even a sensible metric?
Yes. When you are using the results to compare demographics rather than as any kind of diagnostic tool. Also... what it shows is also available for us to see within the NHS system and from other surveys. It's not an outlying statistic. It's reaffirming what is already known.
So stats are sensible if they tell us what we think we already know?
No, stats are sensible depending on their intended use. Here this survey is fine for showing the disparity in responses (and experiences) across regions (and over time). But whether you want to trust them or not should be influenced by other existing data and reporting from other sources.
I'm not sure what your point was?
One is mostly genetic diagnosed at childhood, and with injections can be controlled very successfully . The other is broadly diagnosed later in life is caused by diet and is generally requires fairly dramatic changes to how you live that most people struggle to achieve/maintain, although it can be managed.
Even the overweight T2D might not tick the poor health box if they think its not really impacting them
while that's true to an extent, it will have an impact on them sooner or later, and increasingly we're seeing seeing that happen sooner rather than later.
whilst I understand the use, I'm not sure it sits right with me that healthcare professionals are attaching a (non-clinical) label to patients which rightly or wrongly implies that their health is an inevitable consequence of other factors. Future generations might look at such labels much the same way as we look "hysteria" as a catch all for women's health issues.Sorry, what's "SLS"?
I'm guessing 'shit life syndrome.' My sister's husband was a gp....
