England

OK, OK We'll Post It.

 

All morning long, I kept getting the same email, with the same link, over and over again.

Nearly every one of the minions who take The Wall Street Journal online, knowing that I enjoy James Taranto's ongoing taunt of the New York Times and their star columnist Paul Krugman, felt compelled to give me a heads up on this morning's Best of the Web column at WSJ.com.

As though I hadn't already been up and skulking my favorite sites for hours.

I suppose it would be ungracious (ingracious?) one of those for sure ... maybe both, not to thank each and every one of you for thinking about our site.

And because it seems very important to you that we spread the word on this issue, and more importantly, because I was going to do it anyway, here we go.

First, from Taranto's post linking to the original article at The Telegraph

 

Great Moments in Socialized Medicine 
First the bad news. "The National Health Service is today condemned over its inhumane treatment of elderly patients in an official report that finds hospitals are failing to meet 'even the most basic standards of care' for the over-65s," ...
 

Now the good news: "In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We've all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false," according to Paul Krugman, star columnist at the New York Times.

Oops, but there's more bad news: The New York Times has been known to publish out-and-out falsehoods on its opinion pages, including under Krugman's byline.

Good news: This could be one of those instances in which he's telling the truth. Bad news: We wouldn't bet on it.

 

Now the full story.

As always, the photo links to the entire peice.

Recommended

 

NHS shamed over callous treatment of elderly

The National Health Service is today condemned over its inhumane treatment of elderly patients in an official report that finds hospitals are failing to meet “even the most basic standards of care” for the over-65s.

By Martin Beckford, Health Correspondent 

A study of pensioners who suffered appalling treatment at the hands of doctors and nurses say that half were not given enough to eat or drink.  One family member said the maltreatment amounted to "euthanasia".

Some were left unwashed or in soiled clothes, while others were forgotten after being sent home or given the wrong medication.

In several cases considered by the Health Service Ombudsman, patients died without loved ones by their sides because of the “casual indifference” of staff and their “bewildering disregard” for people’s needs.

The damning report warns that extra money will not help the NHS meet required standards of care and that more problems are likely as the population ages.

Ann Abraham, who as health ombudsman carries out independent investigation of complaints against the health service, said: “The findings of my investigations reveal an attitude – both personal and institutional – which fails to recognise the humanity and individuality of the people concerned and to respond to them with sensitivity, compassion and professionalism.

 

But no death panels.

 

GD(ij) =0.137 log (pop (i)/pop (j)) + 0.145 log (y (i)/y (j)) + 0.739 log (exp (i)/exp (j))

 

The quants strike again.

Simon Kuper and Stefan Szymanski have applied the following forecasting model they developed for their book “Why England Lose” to the 2010 FIFA World Cup Tournament.

GD(ij) =0.137 log (pop (i)/pop (j)) + 0.145 log (y (i)/y (j)) + 0.739 log (exp (i)/exp (j))

Where i and j are the opposing sides.

“GD” is the goal difference between the two sides, “pop” = population, “y” = GDP per head and “exp” = team experience.

South Africa gets an additional 0.657 each game for home team advantage.

The above formula based on the ratio between the opposing team’s populations, GDP per person, experience and home field advantage for the host nation, Kuper and Syzmanski have applied linear regression (Huh?) to show that the outcome of international matches can be accurately predicted 72% of the time. 

Their winner?

Brazil over Serbia.

Click the chart below for a larger, more readable version.

The chart was scanned from a Wired Magazine UK article at my other new favorite site, Chart Porn

The favored matchup by the betting public is England v. Brazil at about 14/1.

The odds for a Serbia v. Brazil final currently stand at about 150/1.

I'm thinking about it for a hundred.

I might put another hundred on Spain, my favorite team, to win.

Why Spain?

They play the beautiful game.

England?

Lose

At least now we know why.

 

Syndicate content