The following Dodgers have been smited by the JDK for their crimes against Jam:
All the girls! for picking on the JDK and damaging his already delicate self esteem!
The Basserd Who Nicked Copper's Stuff For the offense of nicking Copper's stuff. You are a tw*t, whoever you are and we all hope you get run over by a tram in Nottingham. Or Liverpool. Or whereever else they have trams!
Copper For the crime of playing with her Wii instead of her Jammie pals!
There is a school of thought that says broadly that you will die when you die - its all down to genetics and you cant do much about it. But my view is that education, access to medicine, exercise and nutrition play a huge role in extending life - and it would seem the academics (at least for now) agree with me.
I'm not saying this is definitive though. After all - scientists recently said that press reports had no impact on economic markets (they'd 'modelled' it - a posh way of saying they stuck examples in a spreadsheet - according to New Scientist) - but tell that to Robert Peston, who's credited with wiping £17bn off the stock market in one day with a false report that the $700bn deal then going through congress would be thrown out!
Its never straight forward is it!
__________________
I'll take arrogance and the inevitable hubris over self-doubt and lack of confidence.
"Everyone has a plan, until they get punched in the face" - Mike Tyson
I'd have thought that these days, medicine being what it is, longevity wouldn't be affected too much by status, but quality of life in later years might be, since the NHS seems to be geared towards keeping poor people alive for as long as possible no matter what.
Still, I always thought it was generally accepted that the richer you are, the longer you were likely to live and the healthier you were likely to be during that lifetime.
As for the press reports, I'd say that just a few years ago, the scientists could have been right about their nominal effect on the market (with a few exceptions), however the way stuff is reported these days is entirely different with even the BBC sensationalising minor news items - it used to be that financial news was limited to a 2 minute slot near the end of the dinner-time news, but with 24 hour news channels and reams of web pages to fill, anything goes! (Do you have a link to the New Scientist article? I did a quick search on their archive but couldn't see it.)
Nope - I had a look for it today but its not there anymore (they may have taken it down in light of recent events) - I looked it up online after it was mentioned to me a few a months ago (in the then current issue) and read it then.
It was hardly rocket science because basically it said "News reports dont influence market conditions" which was kinda obvious when you consider that most news reports are sourced from market traders, which puts the press behind the loop.
You're right though in that in recent times the influence has swung back towards the press - but this isnt unheard of - it happened during the last recession also (yes I'm old enough for this to be my second recession during my working life) and it happened during the 1970's when things were much darker than they are now.
__________________
I'll take arrogance and the inevitable hubris over self-doubt and lack of confidence.
"Everyone has a plan, until they get punched in the face" - Mike Tyson
Demographics have a huge effect on health. It's not even just the obvious bits about nutrition & exercise, if you're wealthier (& I'm talking just to a normal level, not filthy rich) you're likely to be better educated/informed & so you're better equipped to look after yourself & have a greater appreciation of what's worth going to the doctor with. Also, you're possibly less likely to have the mindset where you "don't want to bother the doctor".