Charge to use Blackwall Tunnel

cantersaddick said:

jose said:

Very well done our three times elected Mayor Sir Sadiq Khan.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1l1r1zne1ro

My focus on this is from a public health and health economics as thats my professional area of interest. 

For me this is huge. Beyond the obvious healthier children is a clear and obvious societal good. There are just so many benefits. 

This is tens of thousands of GP appointments available for other needs with knock on effects on wait times and access to GP. Its thousands of referral and treatment slots in the NHS which are available for others and waiting lists for treatments reducing. 

Its millions fewer sick days taken from school and work across their lifetime leading to a more productive and healthy workforce. 

Its whole liferimes of NHS support avoided. 

These sort of public health interventions really are huge wins for every part of society. 

cantersaddick said:

tallboy said:

cantersaddick said:

jose said:

Very well done our three times elected Mayor Sir Sadiq Khan.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1l1r1zne1ro

My focus on this is from a public health and health economics as thats my professional area of interest. 

For me this is huge. Beyond the obvious healthier children is a clear and obvious societal good. There are just so many benefits. 

This is tens of thousands of GP appointments available for other needs with knock on effects on wait times and access to GP. Its thousands of referral and treatment slots in the NHS which are available for others and waiting lists for treatments reducing. 

Its millions fewer sick days taken from school and work across their lifetime leading to a more productive and healthy workforce. 

Its whole liferimes of NHS support avoided. 

These sort of public health interventions really are huge wins for every part of society. 

Here we go again. Conclusions being made with no substantial evidence to back them up and for someone that claims a professional role in health economics you don't seem to understand the concept of "Lost Opportunity Cost".

The Queen Mary's study only covers the 'original' inner London ULEZ area which was introduced in 2019. It has found that restricting emissions from vehicles in a geographically small area results in improved lung function in children. The study states that the children resident in Central London (the Central bit is important!) closed the gap and caught up to those children in the "control group" who lived in Luton i.e. both sets of children had comparable/similar lung function at the completion of the study with the central London children having improved their lung function so as to broadly match the Luton children. 

At face value the Queen Mary study is good news but there are dissenting voices such as Stephen Burgess, a professor of biostatistics at the University of Cambridge who stated "it was not clear that the changes observed were truly attributable to Ulez, as opposed to other factors such as the impact of the Covid pandemic on pollution levels." 

The Queen Mary study makes no claims as to whether similar benefits might occur in the much larger Outer London ULEZ ring as was seen in the much more condensed "inner London ULEZ" area.

The expansion of ULEZ to the outer London suburbs in August 2023 cost around £450 -500 million to implement.

In the lead up to the implementation of Outer London ULEZ many parties pointed out that the expansion was being rushed without any real evidence of any benefits to air quality & health being available. Unfortuately fit isn't easy to get observable, empirical evidence of the effects of measures such as ULEZ.  Ian Mudway of Imperial College London, an associate professor and senior lecturer in the School of Public Health commented on the BBC that studies such as the one carried out by Queen Mary's "dont come cheap, and take a long time to do properly. "

In the discussions prior to the ULEZ expansion in August 2023 one opposition London assembly member suggested that the money would be better spent employing a couple of enforcement officers for each Outer London borough to enforce existing rules on wood/coal burning stoves.  Mayor Khan ignored the dissenting voices and pressed ahead with the Outer London expansion of ULEZ. A cynic would suggest that he saw this move as a vote winner. 

The £450 -500 million implementation cost of the expansion of ULEZ to Outer London came with a huge "Lost Opportunity Cost". There is no evidence to show that the expansion of ULEZ will result in better health outcomes for Londoners i.e. could that near £1/2 Billion been better spent on other measures such as employing more GP's, nurses, reducing waiting lists, funding Sports Clubs etc? 

Hang on a second old chap. I never said it had anything related to the expansion to outer London. I just replied to a comment (on a thread that also doesn't mention the outer London expansion) and added some public health context to a particular study.

I think you're maybe projecting here a little shortgirl. 😉

tallboy said:

cantersaddick said:

tallboy said:

cantersaddick said:

jose said:

Very well done our three times elected Mayor Sir Sadiq Khan.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1l1r1zne1ro

My focus on this is from a public health and health economics as thats my professional area of interest. 

For me this is huge. Beyond the obvious healthier children is a clear and obvious societal good. There are just so many benefits. 

This is tens of thousands of GP appointments available for other needs with knock on effects on wait times and access to GP. Its thousands of referral and treatment slots in the NHS which are available for others and waiting lists for treatments reducing. 

Its millions fewer sick days taken from school and work across their lifetime leading to a more productive and healthy workforce. 

Its whole liferimes of NHS support avoided. 

These sort of public health interventions really are huge wins for every part of society. 

Here we go again. Conclusions being made with no substantial evidence to back them up and for someone that claims a professional role in health economics you don't seem to understand the concept of "Lost Opportunity Cost".

The Queen Mary's study only covers the 'original' inner London ULEZ area which was introduced in 2019. It has found that restricting emissions from vehicles in a geographically small area results in improved lung function in children. The study states that the children resident in Central London (the Central bit is important!) closed the gap and caught up to those children in the "control group" who lived in Luton i.e. both sets of children had comparable/similar lung function at the completion of the study with the central London children having improved their lung function so as to broadly match the Luton children. 

At face value the Queen Mary study is good news but there are dissenting voices such as Stephen Burgess, a professor of biostatistics at the University of Cambridge who stated "it was not clear that the changes observed were truly attributable to Ulez, as opposed to other factors such as the impact of the Covid pandemic on pollution levels." 

The Queen Mary study makes no claims as to whether similar benefits might occur in the much larger Outer London ULEZ ring as was seen in the much more condensed "inner London ULEZ" area.

The expansion of ULEZ to the outer London suburbs in August 2023 cost around £450 -500 million to implement.

In the lead up to the implementation of Outer London ULEZ many parties pointed out that the expansion was being rushed without any real evidence of any benefits to air quality & health being available. Unfortuately fit isn't easy to get observable, empirical evidence of the effects of measures such as ULEZ.  Ian Mudway of Imperial College London, an associate professor and senior lecturer in the School of Public Health commented on the BBC that studies such as the one carried out by Queen Mary's "dont come cheap, and take a long time to do properly. "

In the discussions prior to the ULEZ expansion in August 2023 one opposition London assembly member suggested that the money would be better spent employing a couple of enforcement officers for each Outer London borough to enforce existing rules on wood/coal burning stoves.  Mayor Khan ignored the dissenting voices and pressed ahead with the Outer London expansion of ULEZ. A cynic would suggest that he saw this move as a vote winner. 

The £450 -500 million implementation cost of the expansion of ULEZ to Outer London came with a huge "Lost Opportunity Cost". There is no evidence to show that the expansion of ULEZ will result in better health outcomes for Londoners i.e. could that near £1/2 Billion been better spent on other measures such as employing more GP's, nurses, reducing waiting lists, funding Sports Clubs etc? 

Hang on a second old chap. I never said it had anything related to the expansion to outer London. I just replied to a comment (on a thread that also doesn't mention the outer London expansion) and added some public health context to a particular study.

I think you're maybe projecting here a little shortgirl. 😉

I think your statement "for me this is huge" provides a big clue as to how readers should interpret your statements. 

It's all about you and your opinions. Objective fact doesn't get a look in.

I've previously advised you to think a bit more before posting your opinions as fact but you can't seem to help yourself.