Media Discussion - 2023/24

[bluenova]

While you are right in principle, of course, that attention to child welfare and poverty is good, you don't think the constant references to the PL, to football clubs and to league tables trivialises the issue? The sort of people who will appreciate the comparisons would, I imagine, be the least likely to be able to do anything about it. On the other hand, as far as I can see there is no link to the actual report, so maybe the report itself is more intellectual and less populist.

It's got people talking about healthy inequalities - essentially free advertising for their cause. Ultimately the public do have power to change things, and if they have a better understanding of the world, then they'll hopefully put pressure on the people who do make decisions.

They could produce a hundred intellectual reports a day without getting any exposure in the press, so I think the end justifies the means. I can understand your point about the football language trivialising the issue, but even the MEN article is packed with comparisons of how poverty affects different areas, and is generally serious in tone.

 

[bluenova]

Tbf to them, they have made comparisons, as I understand it, between boroughs across the country. It is the MEN who have constructed the cross-(greater) Manchester "divide".

I will try to dig out the actual report to see if it is more academic than the article.

I don't think there is a detailed report - the organisation has produced plenty of more in-depth ones (https://www.healthequitynorth.co.uk/reports/), but this looks like a blog post which had a much more straightforward job of simply highlighting the issue and their wider work.

 

[SebastianBlue]

The Manchester divide that goes well beyond a football rivalry

"Children being born and brought up in the home of Manchester's triumphant Citizens face among the worst health prospects in the country - but children born in the Devils' backyard are 50 per cent less likely to grow up impoverished", according to so called `new`academic research as reported in today`s Manchester Evening News (MEN).

https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...s/manchester-divide-goes-well-beyond-27446049

The MEN does not, however, provide any analysis or balanced commentary.

Public and private agencies have been trying to tackle inequality for as long as anyone can remember. This is not news despite the co-authors thinking that it is.

The reality is that it is pretentious, attention seeking academics once again who cast out a hook to justify their research in order to try and convince others that that they need more funding for their next research project. Once again, City is their hook.

Trafford is not Manchester. It is one of the wealthiest boroughs. It is a contrived comparison by the academics and undermines the serious matters.This appears to be as much about them and their profile as the real issues.

Perhaps they could do something useful such as working for City in the Community.

Football clubs are not responsible for public health, poverty and inequality however they can contribute to a range of measures by government, local authorities and other agencies, as well as developing their own initiatives.

City in the Community and the City Football Group are leaders. The report writers and MEN failed to grasp the opportunity to recognise this work in Manchester and beyond. Why?

The real issue with the article is that it fails the prime tenets of data analysis:

1) Context is king

Health outcomes are almost always better in wealthy areas compared to less wealthy areas. And Trafford has had a multiple decades head start in development across all sectors that impact health outcomes: housing, municipal infrastructure, healthcare services and access, educational services and access, business development, social services, and labour opportunity.

That Manchester would be behind now by comparison is not only not surprising, it is misleading (if not malpractice) to present it as some revelation.

2) Insights are mostly in the trends, not the nominal values

The authors have ignored that the club have been investing heavily in the community for the past 15 years across nearly all of the aforementioned sectors (directly or indirectly). Based on recent healthcare data, most metrics have been improving, including a faster rise in life expectancy than comparable regions from 2016-2019.

Positive trends in Manchester are outpacing Trafford and many other analogous regions within the UK.

Is there much more room to improve? Absolutely.

But does it take time to do that, especially to reach levels of a comparison region that has had far more support and investment for decades? Yes, it does.

It is also a problem of data collection and statistical significance; when it comes to health outcomes in any species, you can only really derive meaningful insights from longitudinal studies, which literally take time. You can’t fully demonstrate better health outcomes in a human population without waiting for them to, you know, have outcomes. And you can’t expedite that process as you can with other focuses of study.

This is an asinine treatment of an important topic, crafting a wholly misleading narrative.

If I had more clout and energy I would ask to be allowed to write a response in the MEN, it is that bad.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I don't think there is a detailed report - the organisation has produced plenty of more in-depth ones (https://www.healthequitynorth.co.uk/reports/), but this looks like a blog post which had a much more straightforward job of simply highlighting the issue and their wider work.

True, it seems to have been based on a 2021 report which, presumably, was used by the appropriate authorities and institutions. I will read it later, but I assume it's the sort of serious academic work that didn't get much popular attention. This new "presentation" may but I think they are forgetting football tribalism. Anyway, it got me invested in reading the report, so what the heck. :)

 

[halfcenturyup]

The real issue with the article is that it fails the prime tenets of data analysis:

1) Context is king

Health outcomes are almost always better in wealthy areas compared to less wealthy areas. And Trafford has had a multiple decades head start in development across all sectors that impact health outcomes: housing, municipal infrastructure, healthcare services and access, educational services and access, business development, social services, and labour opportunity.

That Manchester would be behind now by comparison is not only not surprising, it is misleading (if not malpractice) to present it as some revelation.

2) Insights are mostly in the trends, not the nominal values

The authors have ignored that the club have been investing heavily in the community for the past 15 years across nearly all of the aforementioned sectors (directly or indirectly). Based on recent healthcare data, most metrics have been improving, including a faster rise in life expectancy than comparable regions from 2016-2019.

Positive trends in Manchester are outpacing Trafford and many other analogous regions within the UK.

Is there much more room to improve? Absolutely.

But does it take time to do that, especially to reach levels of a comparison region that has had far more support and investment for decades? Yes, it does.

It is also a problem of data collection and statistical significance; when it comes to health outcomes in any species, you can only really derive meaningful insights from longitudinal studies, which literally take time. You can’t fully demonstrate better health outcomes in a human population without waiting for them to, you know, have outcomes. And you can expedite that process as you can with other focuses of study.

This is an asinine treatment of an important topic, crafting a wholly misleading narrative.

If I had more clout and energy I would ask to be allowed to write a response in the MEN, it is that bad.

I absolutely (!) agree with you about the article and the "league table" presentation of a serious issue, but I think the underlying research would have been properly academic. At least I hope so. Will read it later.

 

[SebastianBlue]

I absolutely (!) agree with you about the article and the "league table" presentation of a serious issue, but I think the underlying research would have been properly academic. At least I hope so. Will read it later.

I was only referring to the MEN article being wholly misleading; the research itself is empirical.

Now, I think there is an argument that the researchers may be pushing ethical boundaries to capitalise on football interest (and specifically currently popular distaste for our ownership) and get more exposure for their work by creating the ‘health outcomes league’ itself, but that is separate from the underlying data.

So, it seems, we’ve finally found something other than VAR we agree on. ;-)

 

[halfcenturyup]

I was only referring to the MEN article being wholly misleading; the research itself is empirical.

Now, I think there is an argument that the researchers may be pushing ethical boundaries to capitalise on football interest (and specifically currently popular distaste for our ownership) and get more exposure for their work by creating the ‘health outcomes league’ itself, but that is separate from the underlying data.

So, it seems, we’ve finally found something other than VAR we agree on. ;-)

Well, bugger me.

Want to try for a hat-trick? Los Angeles or San Francisco?

 

[Rory Bluelow]

The real issue with the article is that it fails the prime tenets of data analysis:

1) Context is king

Health outcomes are almost always better in wealthy areas compared to less wealthy areas. And Trafford has had a multiple decades head start in development across all sectors that impact health outcomes: housing, municipal infrastructure, healthcare services and access, educational services and access, business development, social services, and labour opportunity.

That Manchester would be behind now by comparison is not only not surprising, it is misleading (if not malpractice) to present it as some revelation.

2) Insights are mostly in the trends, not the nominal values

The authors have ignored that the club have been investing heavily in the community for the past 15 years across nearly all of the aforementioned sectors (directly or indirectly). Based on recent healthcare data, most metrics have been improving, including a faster rise in life expectancy than comparable regions from 2016-2019.

Positive trends in Manchester are outpacing Trafford and many other analogous regions within the UK.

Is there much more room to improve? Absolutely.

But does it take time to do that, especially to reach levels of a comparison region that has had far more support and investment for decades? Yes, it does.

It is also a problem of data collection and statistical significance; when it comes to health outcomes in any species, you can only really derive meaningful insights from longitudinal studies, which literally take time. You can’t fully demonstrate better health outcomes in a human population without waiting for them to, you know, have outcomes. And you can’t expedite that process as you can with other focuses of study.

This is an asinine treatment of an important topic, crafting a wholly misleading narrative.

If I had more clout and energy I would ask to be allowed to write a response in the MEN, it is that bad.

Your point 2 is especially relevant here.

 

[laserblue]

View attachment 88733

This team lost 7-0 at Anfield in the Premier League last season.

United: De Gea; Dalot, Varane, Martinez (Malacia 77), Shaw; Casemiro (Sabitzer 77), Fred (McTominay 58); Antony, Fernandes, Rashford (Elanga 85); Weghorst (Garnacho 58).

So what's your point you big nosed twat?

 

[Milesvk]

This team lost 7-0 at Anfield in the Premier League last season.

United: De Gea; Dalot, Varane, Martinez (Malacia 77), Shaw; Casemiro (Sabitzer 77), Fred (McTominay 58); Antony, Fernandes, Rashford (Elanga 85); Weghorst (Garnacho 58).

So what's your point you big nosed twat?

We have put 5 & 6 past Bournemouth with Ake in the team and now he is a treble winner.
He doesn't have a point, he is trying his best to make out he isn't up to much.