When asked if he agreed with experts that warn of an overdiagnosis of mental health conditions, Streeting said he wanted to "follow the evidence and I agree with that point about overdiagnosis" (my emphasis).
Is this really an unreasonable exchange of views? Shall we perhaps hold off on the outrage till we’ve read the whole article? Or even the whole of the sentence in question?
Very carefully worded question that avoids any mention of who specifically the “experts” in question are, or what study exactly came to these conclusions.
There are “experts” that claim the world is flat, and “experts” that claim vaccines cause all sorts of problems worse than the diseases they prevent.
One can always dig up an expert that agrees with whatever bullshit you wish to peddle.
I’d bet folding money that the “expert opinion” referred to is in fact, in the report by the IFS they mention above in the article rather than any medical study examining the subject.
This is, in fact, baseless. There are experts in, e.g., ADHD, who thinks it’s over diagnosed, so the base assumption here is: he’s referring to those experts.
Given the real questions about over-diagnosis, your assumption, ‘I bet in this interview I didn’t listen to he was referring to a report I haven’t read’ is, indeed, baseless.
Likewise, there are experts in neurology and psychology who dismiss said assertions, pointing to our progress in understanding and ability to diagnose now what we couldn’t previously.
Many individuals previously labelled “difficult”, “lazy”, and “unmotivated” are now understood to be afflicted with medical problems. We can’t yet do all that much about it, but we know more than we did.
As you can see, it largely depends on how much background knowledge you already have on the subject at hand as to what conclusions can be drawn from the wording.
Perhaps your view might not be the correct one, after all?
Edit: It is worth drawing attention to the fact that it suits no politician to lose the oft derided “lazy do-nothings” supposedly responsible for society’s decline, or at the least a “drain on hard working families”.
The pounds sterling cost of the entire welfare state would fit numerous times over into the unpaid taxes of the likes of Amazon et al.
So who exactly are the politicians really looking out for?
Is this really an unreasonable exchange of views? Shall we perhaps hold off on the outrage till we’ve read the whole article? Or even the whole of the sentence in question?
Very carefully worded question that avoids any mention of who specifically the “experts” in question are, or what study exactly came to these conclusions.
There are “experts” that claim the world is flat, and “experts” that claim vaccines cause all sorts of problems worse than the diseases they prevent.
One can always dig up an expert that agrees with whatever bullshit you wish to peddle.
I’d bet folding money that the “expert opinion” referred to is in fact, in the report by the IFS they mention above in the article rather than any medical study examining the subject.
‘Bet folding money’ or ‘speculate baselessly’?
I wouldn’t call 40+ years of exposure to politicians’ half truths and twisting of words “baseless”, but you do you.
This is, in fact, baseless. There are experts in, e.g., ADHD, who thinks it’s over diagnosed, so the base assumption here is: he’s referring to those experts.
Given the real questions about over-diagnosis, your assumption, ‘I bet in this interview I didn’t listen to he was referring to a report I haven’t read’ is, indeed, baseless.
Likewise, there are experts in neurology and psychology who dismiss said assertions, pointing to our progress in understanding and ability to diagnose now what we couldn’t previously.
Many individuals previously labelled “difficult”, “lazy”, and “unmotivated” are now understood to be afflicted with medical problems. We can’t yet do all that much about it, but we know more than we did.
As you can see, it largely depends on how much background knowledge you already have on the subject at hand as to what conclusions can be drawn from the wording.
Perhaps your view might not be the correct one, after all?
Edit: It is worth drawing attention to the fact that it suits no politician to lose the oft derided “lazy do-nothings” supposedly responsible for society’s decline, or at the least a “drain on hard working families”.
The pounds sterling cost of the entire welfare state would fit numerous times over into the unpaid taxes of the likes of Amazon et al.
So who exactly are the politicians really looking out for?
It would require a level of naivety that most lack.