Skip to main content

Life expectancy in Sheffield

I've just heard on the radio that the divergence of life expectancy in Sheffield between the best off and worst off has now increased so much that it differs by 17.9 years. Those with the best life expectancies will live for nearly 18 years longer.

The presenter was appalled. 'Surely,' he said, 'this can't all be down to lifestyle.' I don't think it is - but I didn't find the expert's response particularly helpful. 'No,' he said, 'what's happening is that well off people are moving to better areas and you are getting well off people all living together and poorer people all living together, and this is bad for both of them.' This may well be true, but I'm not sure it's an answer to the presenter's question.

Firstly, I think he underestimated the power of lifestyle. There really is a big lifestyle difference in this country between different strata of society, both in terms of eating healthily and taking exercise. When you're doing heavy manual labour all day you need a fairly calorie rich diet, and you don't need to take extra exercise - but that culture seems to be maintained even when the manual labour isn't. It isn't a caricature in many households that diet and exercise reflect social position - and this has a very significant impact on life expectancy.

The second cause, I'd suggest, is lack of control. There was a classic study of civil servants from the very top to cleaners. Traditionally you would expect those in positions of high responsibility to be more stressed and to suffer from more stress related illness. In fact it was the other way round. The more control you had in your job, the less stress you were under, despite all those difficult decisions and extensive responsibility. Being in control of your life has a major impact on your wellbeing, and life expectancy. Particularly in times of recession, this magnifies the difference between the rich and the poor, the employed and the unemployed.

It's just rather worrying this wasn't mentioned.
Labels:

Comments

  1. Beleaguered Squirrel2 November 2009 at 23:25

    "well off people [are] all living together and poorer people [are] all living together, and this is bad for both of them."

    I don't even understand. Bad for both of who? Bad for both rich and poor? Why would that be, and why would it translate into the figures quoted here?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brian Clegg3 November 2009 at 11:29

    Sorry, it wasn't phrased very well. He was suggesting that the tendency for there to be segregation of housing by financial status - i.e. some areas just poor people, some areas just rich people - was a bad thing for both rich and poor.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp
117 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more