4000 people die within 6 weeks of being deemed "Fit to Work"
Discussion
Flip Martian said:
Quite frankly the official statistics could say "we have evidence that 4000 died as a direct result of being forced back to work" and some in here would still cheer and see that as a positive. Some of the comments in here are quite vile, even by the standards of PH.
Agreed, no doubt the vile attitude would still persist even if it were their own family member affected?Sheepshanks said:
crankedup said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Just as long as they don't clock out whilst working on your business premises eh. Can't imagine the H&S implications of that, nightmare scenario.
crankedup said:
Sheepshanks said:
crankedup said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Just as long as they don't clock out whilst working on your business premises eh. Can't imagine the H&S implications of that, nightmare scenario.From the words above, that was typed from within one half or another of "the idiots in this PH club". In reality, a post speaking for nobody (else). Heaven forbid it had something to do with the need to vent some frustration through the keyboard via a humourless rebuke. It was however very interesting to note such a detailed analysis in support of the non-story junk journalism - notable by its absence, that is.
Rock on
Trax said:
Radio 4's 'more or less' answered a question about a similar stat a while ago - reckon it was over six months ago. Think it was x amount of people died within 6 weeks of their claim stopping, as opposed to found fit for work, so not sure how much applies.
Their result was it means nothing. The stat within 6 weeks, covered a 12 week period, and therefore included people who had died, and their claim then obviously stopped, therefore they died within 6 weeks of their claim stopping...... The ones that died after, represented something like average. So that claim of x amount dying within 6 weeks of claim ending was true, however it meant nothing. It was something like 6000 people as well.
Idiots were saying stopping claims meant 6000 died, but it meant no such thing. Stats eh?
That was a somewhat different stat.Their result was it means nothing. The stat within 6 weeks, covered a 12 week period, and therefore included people who had died, and their claim then obviously stopped, therefore they died within 6 weeks of their claim stopping...... The ones that died after, represented something like average. So that claim of x amount dying within 6 weeks of claim ending was true, however it meant nothing. It was something like 6000 people as well.
Idiots were saying stopping claims meant 6000 died, but it meant no such thing. Stats eh?
That was 6000 people who died within 6 weeks of their claim being stopped, but it turned out that it also included claims that were stopped because the person died.
I'd be overall hesitant to draw too much from this newer stat, which is actually 2,380 dying within two weeks of being found fit for work. A much more specific claim, and hopefully one that the excellent More or Less will look in to.
It'd be impossible to ascertain causality, so I expect the DWP will hammer that drum rather hard. But it might be more possible to look in to whether you'd expect that number of people to die. The DWP has claimed that JSA claimants, who they say ESA failures would become, have a lower mortality rate than the general population. Seems like a poor argument to me for several reasons
1. Not all people declared fit for work will claim JSA straight away. In fact claiming JSA means declaring you are fit for work, and we know from the ESA appeals stats that a good number of people won't be so are caught in the middle while they appeal.
2. JSA claimant group will exclude disabled, pension age and is probably generally weighted to the lower end of the 18-65 age group anyway. So the mortality rate should probably be rather low anyway.
Really difficult to do a proper analysis on this. But hopefully it will be done.
It probably does highlight the ATOS f
k-up rate though, but we knew that already.anonymous said:
[redacted]
One day when your health is failing you may well reconsider that. Or if you suddenly get ill - happens a lot, you might be surprised.To me, the bullying and hatred of the disabled is no better than a member of the BNP who hates a black person - a disabled person can not help being ill, the same way a person can not help the colour of their skin.
FullFact analysis;
https://fullfact.org/economy/dwp_publishes_benefit...
This is the kind of statistic that people will interpret as a validation of their prejudices without investigating further.
https://fullfact.org/economy/dwp_publishes_benefit...
This is the kind of statistic that people will interpret as a validation of their prejudices without investigating further.
crankedup said:
Sheepshanks said:
crankedup said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Just as long as they don't clock out whilst working on your business premises eh. Can't imagine the H&S implications of that, nightmare scenario.woowahwoo said:
johnfm said:
crankedup said:
Sheepshanks said:
crankedup said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Just as long as they don't clock out whilst working on your business premises eh. Can't imagine the H&S implications of that, nightmare scenario.
Labour Luvvie Lord Donoughue said:
With the collapse of Marxism, there was created a vacuum on the left. Those seeking an ideological faith to cling on to for moral certainty felt bereft. They also wanted a faith which again gave them a feeling of still pursuing the common good of society, especially the new global society, and even more a feeling of moral superiority which is a characteristic of many middle and professional types on the left.
Feeling not factual, so typical. R8Steve said:
Adrian W said:
Either they are fit for work or they are not, if an expert says you are and you subsequently die fairly quickly afterwards, clearly he or she was wrong. by declaring the person fit the expert has taken responsibility for the decision.
Not really, i could die of a heart attack tomorrow. I'm fit for work today though.
As with all things there will be errors in the decision making process for being unfit for work. You have a bad back, it means you cannot lift items but does that mean you can never work again?
I had a driver who had only got one leg, his clutch leg was artificial, he drove well and wanted to work. This is around 12 years ago before the left using the figures to suit them. He had his other leg amputated due to diabetic complications, he wrote and was told he had to go in and prove he had now got no legs.
It was idiots in an office who would not take the word of a Doctor who removed his leg!!!
There are many "disabled too sick to work" who can work but choose not to. We should applaud attempts to make these work.
The bigger issue for me is if you are well and can live on the dole, why should a disability automatically be a ticket for extra money, a car etc? That is why so many strive to be labelled as such and fight so hard to keep the label when challenged.
I doubt that there are more than a handful whose death could remotely be attributed to the process of assessment but is anyone surprised that some want to spin it this way?
I had a driver who had only got one leg, his clutch leg was artificial, he drove well and wanted to work. This is around 12 years ago before the left using the figures to suit them. He had his other leg amputated due to diabetic complications, he wrote and was told he had to go in and prove he had now got no legs.
It was idiots in an office who would not take the word of a Doctor who removed his leg!!!
There are many "disabled too sick to work" who can work but choose not to. We should applaud attempts to make these work.
The bigger issue for me is if you are well and can live on the dole, why should a disability automatically be a ticket for extra money, a car etc? That is why so many strive to be labelled as such and fight so hard to keep the label when challenged.
I doubt that there are more than a handful whose death could remotely be attributed to the process of assessment but is anyone surprised that some want to spin it this way?
spaximus said:
The bigger issue for me is if you are well and can live on the dole, why should a disability automatically be a ticket for extra money, a car etc? That is why so many strive to be labelled as such and fight so hard to keep the label when challenged.
I doubt that there are more than a handful whose death could remotely be attributed to the process of assessment but is anyone surprised that some want to spin it this way?
Last point first - no-one sensible is going to attempt to attribute many of these deaths to the assessment process itself, short of figures becoming available on suicides and possible deaths related to stress and anxiety. What is being discussed is whether these deaths represent an excess mortality in those who would fall into a "fit for work" category. That then becomes a discussion of just what was going on with the ESA assessment process, and was it being got drastically wrong (we know that it was already)I doubt that there are more than a handful whose death could remotely be attributed to the process of assessment but is anyone surprised that some want to spin it this way?
Second point - I'm not clear "if you are well" and have a disability?
Let's address a couple of those points
1. Having a disability is not a ticket to "extra money" or a car, automatically. PIP/DLA and ESA are assessed entirely on need. You could have a diagnosis of cerebral palsy, cancer etc and not be entitled to anything because you don't have extra needs. The assessments are based entirely on how you are affected, not what you have.
2. Being disabled, and having needs, is expensive. Food, heating, transport, washing, items not paid for by NHS (I believe this covers things like incontinence aids for adults). All of those things are known to be more costly, depending on condition. I come across people who run washing machines constantly, even have two, due to soiling. Food, because they have extra nutrition needs, or are not able to physically cook so have to eat prepared meals. Heating because it's critical to their health. Transport - appointments or have to use taxis.
Ahimoth said:
spaximus said:
The bigger issue for me is if you are well and can live on the dole, why should a disability automatically be a ticket for extra money, a car etc? That is why so many strive to be labelled as such and fight so hard to keep the label when challenged.
I doubt that there are more than a handful whose death could remotely be attributed to the process of assessment but is anyone surprised that some want to spin it this way?
Last point first - no-one sensible is going to attempt to attribute many of these deaths to the assessment process itself, short of figures becoming available on suicides and possible deaths related to stress and anxiety. What is being discussed is whether these deaths represent an excess mortality in those who would fall into a "fit for work" category. That then becomes a discussion of just what was going on with the ESA assessment process, and was it being got drastically wrong (we know that it was already)I doubt that there are more than a handful whose death could remotely be attributed to the process of assessment but is anyone surprised that some want to spin it this way?
Second point - I'm not clear "if you are well" and have a disability?
Let's address a couple of those points
1. Having a disability is not a ticket to "extra money" or a car, automatically. PIP/DLA and ESA are assessed entirely on need. You could have a diagnosis of cerebral palsy, cancer etc and not be entitled to anything because you don't have extra needs. The assessments are based entirely on how you are affected, not what you have.
2. Being disabled, and having needs, is expensive. Food, heating, transport, washing, items not paid for by NHS (I believe this covers things like incontinence aids for adults). All of those things are known to be more costly, depending on condition. I come across people who run washing machines constantly, even have two, due to soiling. Food, because they have extra nutrition needs, or are not able to physically cook so have to eat prepared meals. Heating because it's critical to their health. Transport - appointments or have to use taxis.
In the example I gave the driver wanted to work, he saw no need to sit at home which he could have but many others choose to do so.
It is not easy but we do need to try to weed out those who need help and give it and deter those who are abusing the system.
Yesterday I was talking with a high official in the Unite union. He was saying that as a lifelong labour supporter he and many others see that the system is broken, where what was designed to support those, who through no fault of their own, needed help has now become abused to such a degree that it no longer functions. They are happy that it is being tackled as if and when they get back in power, they will not have to do it themselves as it is unworkable. However that does not stop some in his party and union using it to further their aims.
I honestly do not know anyone who wants to see people starving and people forced from a sick bed to work, but there are hundreds of jobs that some disabled people can do as well as able bodied if not better, so why not take those off the disability list.
Being obese should not be a disability and get them more than someone who has worked and is now on the JSA.
But back to the main story, it is being whipped up by some that these people have died due to them being declared fit for work, the implication that these deaths would not have occurred if they had not been told to work.
spaximus said:
No I am not disabled but I have family who are. I for one do not object to genuine cases who need extra assistance to be given it. What I object to is that the term disabled is so over encompassing that someone who is paralysed is seen as the same as someone with one leg or a bad back.
Sorry, I wasn't asking a personal question, just trying to clarify what you were saying.[b]In the example I gave the driver wanted to work, he saw no need to sit at home which he could have but many others choose to do so.
It is not easy but we do need to try to weed out those who need help and give it and deter those who are abusing the system.[/b]
It's difficult to know who chooses to do what. For instance, working in the field that I do I see very different expectations from life from young disabled people than I do from older. There's an interesting case story in 'The Man who mistook his wife for a hat' of an older woman with cerebral palsy who didn't use her arms. Turns out there was nothing wrong with them, it's just that no-one had expected her to do anything for herself.
That leaves us though with a group of people who might be found "fit for work" who are psychologically unprepared by a lifetime of different expectations. That seems like a minor thing, but it concerns me.
Yesterday I was talking with a high official in the Unite union. He was saying that as a lifelong labour supporter he and many others see that the system is broken, where what was designed to support those, who through no fault of their own, needed help has now become abused to such a degree that it no longer functions. They are happy that it is being tackled as if and when they get back in power, they will not have to do it themselves as it is unworkable. However that does not stop some in his party and union using it to further their aims.
There's a couple of things at play here. It's fun to kick the people who are carrying out the reforms, I'd agree. I wouldn't have expected much better from any party in govt. What has happened here though is that people were put on IB (now ESA) for political reasons - it kept them off the unemployment statistics. I'm very well, but have a disability, left university and went to the jobcentre and was told to claim IB. I refused, but someone else might have accepted that this was the correct advice. They weren't really swinging the lead if they had, were they?
[b]I honestly do not know anyone who wants to see people starving and people forced from a sick bed to work, but there are hundreds of jobs that some disabled people can do as well as able bodied if not better, so why not take those off the disability list.
Being obese should not be a disability and get them more than someone who has worked and is now on the JSA. [/b]
It's too easy to not see the real story though. My future FIL is now a bit overweight, but he wasn't when the rheumatoid arthritis started. Statistics about obesity claims don't clear up if they're secondary - a consequence. Immobile people often put on weight. It's really difficult to see the stories behind the statistics.
I'd agree that lots of disabled people can, and should, and in many cases want, work. Kicking some of them off benefits isn't the only part of this story though. Although I'm very well, I'm also quite lucky to work for a very disability friendly organisation - it helps when I can work from home and decide my own hours, gives me the room to do treatments as I work, and occasionally even work from hospital. Not many employers can, or want to, manage this.
But back to the main story, it is being whipped up by some that these people have died due to them being declared fit for work, the implication that these deaths would not have occurred if they had not been told to work.
That's not the implication at all. The question is - if people died within two weeks of being found fit to work, should they have been found fit to work? Undoubtedly, people do die suddenly, regardless of their health status, but is 2,380 more than you'd expect?
edit -sorry, didn't realise that multiple quotes don't work.
Edited by Ahimoth on Friday 28th August 09:47
glazbagun said:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/over...
1300 of whom died after appeal.
Good headline aside, what can be extrapolated from this? What percentage of those found fit to work do the 4000 represent and how does this percentage compare to those who die every day? This could be a really important news story but the information just isn't in the article for us to make any judgement on wether the DWP have done a great or abysmal job.
A quick google says half a million people die in the UK each year, these 4000 have died over appx 2.5 years. Dodgy maths says that's ~0.3% of total UK deaths being people who had been signed off as fit to work by the DWP. But the total includes everything from falling down stairs to dying in your bed at 105.
A compentator on Radio 4 said this was '4 times' the rate for working age adults, Still rather vague but certainly enough to warrant further reporting and elaboration.1300 of whom died after appeal.
Good headline aside, what can be extrapolated from this? What percentage of those found fit to work do the 4000 represent and how does this percentage compare to those who die every day? This could be a really important news story but the information just isn't in the article for us to make any judgement on wether the DWP have done a great or abysmal job.
A quick google says half a million people die in the UK each year, these 4000 have died over appx 2.5 years. Dodgy maths says that's ~0.3% of total UK deaths being people who had been signed off as fit to work by the DWP. But the total includes everything from falling down stairs to dying in your bed at 105.
Later a spokesman said, paraphrased, "this was not a matter for concern because ... 'correlation was not causation'". An expression which really pushes my buttons when bandied around by idiots who use it as grounds to attempt to silence discussion rather than a motivation for further inquiry.
Edited by Martin4x4 on Friday 28th August 10:23
Martin4x4 said:
A compentator on Radio 4 said this was '4 times' the rate of working age adult Still rather vague but certainly enough to warrant further reporting and elaboration.
Later spokesman said, paraphrased, "this was not a matter for concern because ... 'correlation was not causation'". An expression which really pushes my buttons when bandied around by idiots who use it as grounds to attempt to silence discussion rather than a motivation for further inquiry.
The DWP are definitely trying to frame the issue in those terms - we can't be sure if being deemed fit for work killed them. I hope that very little of the debate is drawn in to this red herring.Later spokesman said, paraphrased, "this was not a matter for concern because ... 'correlation was not causation'". An expression which really pushes my buttons when bandied around by idiots who use it as grounds to attempt to silence discussion rather than a motivation for further inquiry.
turbobloke said:
crankedup said:
Sheepshanks said:
crankedup said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Just as long as they don't clock out whilst working on your business premises eh. Can't imagine the H&S implications of that, nightmare scenario.From the words above, that was typed from within one half or another of "the idiots in this PH club". In reality, a post speaking for nobody (else). Heaven forbid it had something to do with the need to vent some frustration through the keyboard via a humourless rebuke. It was however very interesting to note such a detailed analysis in support of the non-story junk journalism - notable by its absence, that is.
Rock on
Onto the next part of my reply to your assumption, it can only be expected for those that feel they can refer to others as scum et all deserve a light of reality poured upon them. Only an idiot wouldn't understand that.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff