Family of 10 turn down 5 bedroom house

[andyinluton]

I wouldn't put yourself out too much as I'm not really interested in your analysis and after over 40 yrs in the NHS I'm well aware of how statistics can be twisted to show whatever result you require, if you so desire.

As someone who has spent years presenting statistics in the boardroom I totally agree, I can usually find a way of presenting the worst possible information in the best possible light or vice versa, even stooping so low as to use a logarithmic scale on graph if it makes it look better.

Didn't someone do a report that concluded 98% of statistics are made up.

 

[AlanH99]

Alan's argument can be classified as a straw man; the clue is in the phrase, "Seems clear to me that...", which would be more honestly phrased as "I would like to mislead you to believe

Reposted with the 'straw man' removed. Honestly, I didn't know he was there.
-------------------------------
I would define a racist as one who discriminates against someone based on their racial group.

According to the Crown Prosecution Service:
"A racial group means a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins."

CF’s comment was

"The main problems people seem to have with him is that he is:
1. a migrant;
2. French;
3. entitled to housing benefits and claiming them;
and possibly, 4. Black."

CF is saying that people who have a problem with Arnold are racist. Or at the very least, seem to be racist.

I singled out CF because it was he who said the above and it wouldn’t be fair to say everyone who defended Arnold were accusing people of being racist.

 

[GrannyJen]

As someone who has spent years presenting statistics in the boardroom I totally agree, I can usually find a way of presenting the worst possible information in the best possible light or vice versa, even stooping so low as to use a logarithmic scale on graph if it makes it look better.

Didn't someone do a report that concluded 98% of statistics are made up.

Yes, but it was discredited as being made up

 

[VW Cali]

Yes, but it was discredited as being made up

Not quite correct


WelshGas provided evidence of overall national benefits to the NHS and taxpayer from smoking and drinking.

Paper written by Christopher Snowdon. My new hero, as iconoclastic as Richard Feynman.

 

[WelshGas]

With all due respect, I beg to differ.

You called me pompous, and now a troll.

I have a question:

Why would a man with 42 years experience of the NHS post a link to Christopher Snowdon's paper as claim it is evidence?

Snowdon has absolutely no background in science, mathematics, medicine, engineering, economics, whether in academia or in industry.

You presented it as evidence. Why? Enlighten all of us.

As a person with 42 years experience of NHS, I am curious to know from you whether abuse of NHS finances occurs both from users of the system, or as well from those who make their living/earnings from it in some way?

Let some more epithets fly. Smart arse, pompous, troll, go for it.

But do try to explain your evidence. You have studiously avoided it in favour of personal insults.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/thesaurus/pompous

 

[GrannyJen]

Not quite correct


WelshGas provided evidence of overall national benefits to the NHS and taxpayer from smoking and drinking.

Paper written by Christopher Snowdon. My new hero, as iconoclastic as Richard Feynman.

Richard Feynman is also my hero, six easy pieces is part of my regular light entertainment, but you have also misread my comments.

Read again. Note the emoticons.

I will distill it....


"
Didn't someone do a report that concluded 98% of statistics are made up.

Yes, but it was discredited as being made up "

 

[VW Cali]

Richard Feynman is also my hero, six easy pieces is part of my regular light entertainment, but you have also misread my comments.

Read again. Note the emoticons.

I will distill it....


"
Didn't someone do a report that concluded 98% of statistics are made up.

Yes, but it was discredited as being made up "

I didn't misinterpret! My comment was meant to be funny.

Pity I never met Feynman directly. However, for a short while at least, I had offices next to people of similar stature, some of whom also landed the Swedish prize in the same area of science, which was also my area.

This is before I left for industry.

 

[VW Cali]

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/thesaurus/pompous

Hahahaha!

Good Lord, stop bringing it on yourself man!

Why not add OED descriptions of:

1. Smart arse (as given by Mike CFO)
2. Troll (as given by Welsh Gas)
3. Pompous (as given by Welsh Gas)
...
...
N. "XXXXX" (to be given in future).

List all OED meanings ahead of time here, so I get it and you don't have to explain it.

Question1: Why did you post the link to paper from Christopher Snowdon as evidence?

Question2: You have also claimed 42 years of experience in NHS as a form of expertise. Can you clarify just what that form of expertise entailed? GP/Specialist/Researcher/Admin/Supplier.

Question3: Is the NHS gamed just by patients, or at least by some of those who earn money from it any manner?

If your aim to keep on quoting OED definitions of personal insults you apply as diversionary tactic know that it's not working.

Tou have me genuinely intrigued that not only can a person like Christopher Snowdon write a paper like that, but a self proclaimed NHS professional with 42 years experience refers to it as evidence.

 

[WelshGas]

A response as expected. You don't have to be an expert to write a report as long as you have robust sources of Information. As you are not a member of the Royal College of Anaesthetics I cannot give the links to the Research Papers, you'll have to do that yourself.
Yes, 42 years in the NHS, 1 yr HO, 2 yr SHO in Anaesthetics, 3 yr Sen Reg in Anaesthetics and 36 yrs as a Consultant in Vascular Anaesthesia and Lead Consultant in Intensive Care Medicine. So I have a little experience in the field.
If you disagree with Mr Snowdens report then ask HMRC for the total Tax take from Tobacco and Alcohol products and relate that to the NHS expenditure on Tobacco and Alcohol related illnesses and treatment.
All this information is available. As you will also notice The Times, Telegraph and Observer also published articles based on his report without any counter comments from the NHS or HMRC.
There are many research papers in Anaesthesia, BMJ and Lancet using the same information from HMRC and the NHS, but of course you new that.
If you enjoy attempting to put down people who have an alternative view then do so. I will enjoy giving you the opportunity. Better me than some other poor soul.
Have a good day. I look forward to your next missive .

 

[VW Cali]

A response as expected. You don't have to be an expert to write a report as long as you have robust sources of Information. As you are not a member of the Royal College of Anaesthetics I cannot give the links to the Research Papers, you'll have to do that yourself.
Yes, 42 years in the NHS, 1 yr HO, 2 yr SHO in Anaesthetics, 3 yr Sen Reg in Anaesthetics and 36 yrs as a Consultant in Vascular Anaesthesia and Lead Consultant in Intensive Care Medicine. So I have a little experience in the field.
If you disagree with Mr Snowdens report then ask HMRC for the total Tax take from Tobacco and Alcohol products and relate that to the NHS expenditure on Tobacco and Alcohol related illnesses and treatment.
All this information is available. As you will also notice The Times, Telegraph and Observer also published articles based on his report without any counter comments from the NHS or HMRC.
There are many research papers in Anaesthesia, BMJ and Lancet using the same information from HMRC and the NHS, but of course you new that.
If you enjoy attempting to put down people who have an alternative view then do so. I will enjoy giving you the opportunity. Better me than some other poor soul.
Have a good day. I look forward to your next missive .

Thank you.

This is helpful, while insults directed at me were not.

I will indeed delve tad deeper into this. I am also forwarding Snowdon's paper to an ex faculty member at Columbia University's Maths Department, and a physicist at Oxford who has retrained in Oncology. Hopefully they too will examine his claims.

While Snowdon's paper itself means nothing because it is a series of claims with no explanation, I hope to see if the references shed any light.

Note I studiously avoided commenting on the conclusions he claims. But as I said, I am intrigued.

***********************************************

Other comments: my background, and some comments for curious cat GranJen.

First of all, I am a nobody. Lucky enough to know that everyone I have ever met brighter than me. But an insatiable curosity to understand. This tends to cheese off some people who are more interested in personal superiority rather than issue at hand.

An occupational hazard, a fait accompli...but admittedly intrigue why people have such self indulgent and fragile egos.

Anyway, since WelshGas provided own background, here is a bit of mine.

Various degrees in mathematics and theoretical physics. Research positions held in advanced engineering at premier US research lab, and later financial engineering in academia and industry.

Can possibly explain medical diagnostic tools at level may surprise some. For example, MRI really used to be called NMR. Actually assisted a professor who was first involved in the set up of mobile NMR units in the US in the mid 1980s.

Industry experience Head R and D for billion dollar plus enterprises, plus global head of trading major financial institution. Focusing just on mathematics practised and used: many disparate areas, but primarily stochastic calculus, often 10 years ahead of academia. Particular interest adaptive stochastic optimal using Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman theory. But at cutting edge have needed to apply cutting edge mathematics from many different areas. Problems do not yield easily to one approach.

Application of stochastic calculus requires usage of many areas of maths, PDEs, EVT, Probability and Stats, Optimization etc. Experience here too, in some detail.

Some other academic areas of maths that I studied at postgrad level have been differential geometry (twisted fibre bundles), algebraic and differential topology, infinite dimensional Lie Algebras (Kac Moody), twistor theory. Mostly forgotten from lack of use.....

Anyway, all the above is meaningless. What is interesting is what I don't know or understand, which takes me to some areas that occupy this limited mind:


Current interest: quantum computation as applied to quantum biology. You may be interested, for example, to know that proton gradient across mitochondria that drive rotation of enzyme ATPase for ATP for energy is almost mathematically impossible unless precise quantum tunnelling is invoked....

So looks like quantum tunnelling responsible for respiration that powers life. Maybe photosynthesis in plants too.

Intriguing isn't it. One would have thought that the hot messy level of large molecules at play inside us, quantum effect would average out. Now seem not only possible, but possibly essential. Nature so wonderful in its richness....

Especially in the actions of enzymes. Now since enzymes are at the heart of biology, this becomes more than just interesting.

Generally biology has been an open area for people trained in the hard sciences starting with Schrodinger writing "What is life" in 1944 and speculating existence of code in the form of an aperiodic crystal. This mrd directly to search for that code with biologists thinking it would be in proteins. However with some including Pauling at Caltech thinking nucleic acids, leading to Crick at Cambridge's physics department deciphering DNA. But now progress is not as heady as claimed in the popular press.

Lots of other intriguing questions that either lie unanswered, or more interestingly as yet unformulated.

On Feynman: apart from QED, Super Conductivity, Path Integrals, the Parton Model etc, Feynman was a pioneer in nano technology and quantum computation. These two areas, along with distributed computing, and machine learning, will have the next biggest impact on science and medicine.

By the way, solutions to partial differential equations can often be had by probabilistic methods based on a theorem called Feynman-Kac, with Marc Kac, the eminent MIT mathematician. In fact nearly all of modern financial derivatives mathematics is based on this theorem alone...

In fact, if you found Feynman intriguing, may I suggest a biography called "Genius" by James Gleick. I think the quality of the biography matches the quality of the subject.

What Feynman once said encapsulates my outlook:

"I'd rather not know then have answers which are wrong."

I think this just said it all.



.

 

[GrannyJen]

The above is all terribly interesting to an academic audience but it would be lovely if this most intriguing thread on alleged misuse of welfare resources was returned back to the subject matter.

This really is not the platform for airing scientific papers and I doubt of very much interest to anyone but the proposer.

Oh, the book "Genius" is also in my personal library.

 

[AlanH99]

I always admired Feynman's ability to take a complex topic, distill it into simple language and give a relevant conclusion.

 

[GrannyJen]

My best Feynman quote was "physics is like sex: Sometimes it produces a practical result but that's not often why we do it"...

However, I am not a physicist. God help the human race if I were. I do enough damage with just a simple screwdriver

 

[VW Cali]

The above is all terribly interesting to an academic audience but it would be lovely if this most intriguing thread on alleged misuse of welfare resources was returned back to the subject matter.

This really is not the platform for airing scientific papers and I doubt of very much interest to anyone but the proposer.

Oh, the book "Genius" is also in my personal library.

I am on the topic.

Was desperately trying to get information and all I got was insults.

Some of my questions on misuse of NHS and other government funds:

1. Apart from non British citizens "abusing" the system, how much of the "system" is abused by British citizens themselves?

2. What constitutes as "British." Anybody who is a citizen, or those who can claim lineage going a few generations back.

3. Apart from patients/users what proportion of funds is misappropriated/embezzled/wasted by those who benefit from it financially. Say suppliers of services, those doctors available at cost privately rather than NHS surgery etc?


Anecdotes from friends in NHS indicate that 3 above is a huge issue. They claim corruption, in addition to unaccountable inefficiencies, is endemic.

If true, exagerrated focus on non British citizens abusing the system is unhelpful.

There are following observations and issues with Snowdon's claims.

Observation 1: Even if more correct than wrong, it suggests that deleterious/injurious activities are of overall benefit if appropriately taxed. But while in principle this is a possibility, there are many issues that arise in achieving such a favourable balance:

A. Obviously there is an optimal point as to what percentage of a population can optimally engage in such activities. If 100% do so, then society does not benefit. But this point is very hard to detemine.

B. The level of appropriate taxation. So instead of a curve of A abive, there is now a 2D surface of percentage of ppoulation vs tax rates.

However, both above, are stilll static analysis without feedback loops and consequences. Even if done, of very limited use.

Now to the other issue:

Cost function:

A definition of cost function in such analysis is critical. Define the cost function badly, impose linear analysis on top, and you get to some unhelpful results.

Specifically, the definition of cost function (to society) as HMRC revenues vs NHS related costs via specific treatment costs is at best the nost basic 0th order cost function. I don't want to call it knuckle headed but 0tg order will do.

This is because in any realistic setting there are harder to quantify subtle/indirect costs. In this case, these could be unidentified costs from disruption to productivity affecting not only the individual but family members and work place as well. If not quantified, and it is hard to do so, the 0th order one will underestimate.

Second, there is the question of whether costs allocated by NHS to say specific smoking/alcohol reveal full picture. Specifically, say certain cancers have not yet been linked to alcohol /smoking. Or in fact, listed as obesity as lifestyle (but hidden underneath excessive alcohol). So there could be an underporting here.

So say Benefits are Taxes minus Costs. Here "Benefits" is actually rhe cost function in terms of mathematics of optimisation.

B = T - C.

I am saying just T and C as chosen are not necessarily reflective and may in fact be that C is considered far too low. Plus another factor of indirect costs, say C_indirect, needs to be added.

Rewriting:

B = T - C - Cindirect - Cmisallocated

Changes basic equation.

In fact it tells you the real research needed is nit just C, but the other Cs.

Finally, this must be put in nonlinear feedback loop with stochastic Cs to look at simulated outputs.

Then tinkering with the inputs to those Cs, varying the parameters, and looking at the ouputs of those simulations, is what helps build intuition and understanding.

Unfortunately taxation and policy has rarely worked that way, and often trivial and 0th order static models, are built as substitute for analysis.

So I am keeping an open mind on the topic.

Anyway, it seems to me as well that many here have been granted the right to insult others as they choose. I am not at all impressed and truth be told have shown great restraint.

But I would, if those who can control their egotistical needs, look at the above issues I have highlighted.

 

[VW Cali]

I always admired Feynman's ability to take a complex topic, distill it into simple language and give a relevant conclusion.

Heaven help us then!

He also said about QED to a reporter asking for simple explanation "If I could explain QED to you in 2 minutes it wouldn't be worth winning the Nobel prize for!"

He also stated, "Nobody understands quantum mechanics. "

So I think while I have huge limitations, he had many too. But you and some others here don't seem to have many.

What takes some of us a lifetime to get to grips with comes so easily to you. However, with due respect, I am not convinced by many of the posts on this forum.

 

[Amarillo]

If you disagree with Mr Snowdens report then ask HMRC for the total Tax take from Tobacco and Alcohol products and relate that to the NHS expenditure on Tobacco and Alcohol related illnesses and treatment.

My CV is nowhere near as distinguished as yours - however, I do feel that your championing the economic benefits of smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol seriously flawed, and all the more surprising given your 42 years working for the NHS.

Here is what I suggest you do:

Apply Mr Snowdon's rigour to a more mundane product: underpants.

Ask HMRC for the total tax take from underpant sales and divide that by the NHS expenditure on underpant related illnesses, and discuss if that figure is any more or less useful than the figure for tobacco and alcohol in determining the differing economic benefits of tobacco, alcohol and underpants.

Once you have completed that study, consider all the mundane things, including underpants, that people might spend their money on if they were not buying tobacco and alcohol related products, and if that money spent in an alternative manner would have a greater or lessor impact on the NHS. (Note to Alan H: I am not saying that if people stopped smoking and drinking they would spend all their surplus cash on buying underpants).

Now consider if, as a person with 42 years experience with the NHS, Mr Snowdon's quoted figures are an accurate reflection of the economic benefits or otherwise of smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol.

 

[GrannyJen]

I suspect that by the time we have finished debating underpants so Arnold will be celebrating the birth of child 9

 

[AlanH99]

......
So I think while I have huge limitations, he had many too. But you and some others here don't seem to have many.

What takes some of us a lifetime to get to grips with comes so easily to you. However, with due respect, I am not convinced by many of the posts on this forum.

What happened there?
I said in a general post that I admired some of Feynman's abilities and I get told off.
Unless you really do think we are so much cleverer than you but I'm not convinced.
If you don't think he had these qualities that's okay but there's no need to get personal about it.

 

[VW Cali]

What happened there?
I said in a general post that I admired some of Feynman's abilities and I get told off.
Unless you really do think we are so much cleverer than you but I'm not convinced.
If you don't think he had these qualities that's okay but there's no need to get personal about it.

I already said I am not cleverer than anybody I have ever met.

This is not just rhetoric but a personal belief, and working hypothesis.

My issue is with the manner of many of the posts in this forum which have reverted to personal invective.

I have no idea who Tom is. But watching his considered and well articulated posts twisted into other meaning, and personal remarks flying his way has not been edifying.

So it is strange to watch a Feynman admirer doing so.

From what I know of the guy he was open minded. When one of the professors from my own research group won the famed Swedish prize the first congratulatory telegram arrived from RPF. There were others who resented it so much they are carping decades later.

Btw, amusingly, RPF was not even a member of the American Physical Society (though I was!) because he felt, with some justification, that such societies propogate smugness and close mindedness. People get high on titles and memberships was his view.

I actually have observed that he was very accurate about this.

So it was amusing to notice a high level consultant resorting to membership of a professional society as justification for Snowdon's conclusions.

Sorry, not buying the Snowdon conclusion, at least as of yet.

If you like Feynman's approach then look at the spirit behind it. He tended to dismiss most research in the social sciences as soft and shoddy, and unfortunately we have far too many examples to lend support to his disdain. Snowdon's claims are just claims.

As for this thread, it evolved as follows:

1. Complaint about a non British Citizen gaming the system.

2. Tom pointed out there was nothing illegal about it.

3. I pointed out that we end up paying for many costs that are knowingly incurred by some. As example, sat smoking and drinking.

4. WelshGas then cited evidence that smoking and alcohol were actually beneficial.

5. I tried to get answers from him but got insults.

6. Finally he posted detail about his background in the NHS.

7. I then explained why I was not convinced by the Snowdon paper at all.

Doubt if it as much evidence as WelshGas claims.

Anyway, I already got a response from the mathematician I mentioned earlier. His immediate response basically same as mine. Cost function definition is limited by choice.

 

[WelshGas]

My CV is nowhere near as distinguished as yours - however, I do feel that your championing the economic benefits of smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol seriously flawed, and all the more surprising given your 42 years working for the NHS.

Here is what I suggest you do:

Apply Mr Snowdon's rigour to a more mundane product: underpants.

Ask HMRC for the total tax take from underpant sales and divide that by the NHS expenditure on underpant related illnesses, and discuss if that figure is any more or less useful than the figure for tobacco and alcohol in determining the differing economic benefits of tobacco, alcohol and underpants.

Once you have completed that study, consider all the mundane things, including underpants, that people might spend their money on if they were not buying tobacco and alcohol related products, and if that money spent in an alternative manner would have a greater or lessor impact on the NHS. (Note to Alan H: I am not saying that if people stopped smoking and drinking they would spend all their surplus cash on buying underpants).

Now consider if, as a person with 42 years experience with the NHS, Mr Snowdon's quoted figures are an accurate reflection of the economic benefits or otherwise of smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol.

Pathetic response as predicted. Nowhere have I advocated the use of Tobacco products or excess Alcohol . The NHS is in financial trouble and at present those who consume these products are in fact net contributors rather than net users to government finances and hence the NHS. I personally object to the immoral use of the benefit system by people and hence the inability of the Government to properly finance the NHS. Until we deal with this then the Law of Unintended Consequences prevails. We cannot afford to lose the Tax excess from Tobacco and Alcohol sales without another source to replace it. Maybe you and your liberal minded colleagues would like to volunteer to pay extra taxes so that Arnold can have contraceptive advice along with his wife and we can increase taxes on Alcohol and Tobacco to such levels that people can no longer afford to indulge and hence you would be able to make up the shortfall to HMRC and maintain Government funding of the NHS.

Sorry, I just cannot take you seriously.

 

[WelshGas]

sat smoking and drinking.

4. WelshGas then cited evidence that smoking and alcohol were actually beneficial.

.

Incorrect. But then to be expected. Nowhere did I state they were beneficial just that Tax revenue exceeded NHS costs for illness related to these products. Ban them and dig deep into other tax revenues to compensate. Law of Unintended Consequences.
Just like introduction of Seat Belts and Crash Helmets - Oh, insufficient Transplant Donors - Introduction by Welsh Assembly of Presumed Consent and increased pressure on Relatives to give Consent for Organ Donation.

 

[VW Cali]

Pathetic response as predicted. Nowhere have I advocated the use of Tobacco products or excess Alcohol . The NHS is in financial trouble and at present those who consume these products are in fact net contributors rather than net users to government finances and hence the NHS. I personally object to the immoral use of the benefit system by people and hence the inability of the Government to properly finance the NHS. Until we deal with this then the Law of Unintended Consequences prevails. We cannot afford to lose the Tax excess from Tobacco and Alcohol sales without another source to replace it. Maybe you and your liberal minded colleagues would like to volunteer to pay extra taxes so that Arnold can have contraceptive advice along with his wife and we can increase taxes on Alcohol and Tobacco to such levels that people can no longer afford to indulge and hence you would be able to make up the shortfall to HMRC and maintain Government funding of the NHS.

Sorry, I just cannot take you seriously.

You have either inadvertently or deliberately missed Tom's point.

Which was about opportunity costs. If people spend disposable income on other products which do not require medical treatment then the Govt gets to keep all the value added tax.

In other words. C is zero. Further I previously highlighted the very practical issue with estimating C.

Snowdon claims it is exactly the figure NHS provide. I say this is a mathematical lower bound. The actual cost, in fractions of GDP, will be some multiple of Snowdon's C.

 

[VW Cali]

Incorrect. But then to be expected. Nowhere did I state they were beneficial just that Tax revenue exceeded NHS costs for illness related to these products. Ban them and dig deep into other tax revenues to compensate. Law of Unintended Consequences.
Just like introduction of Seat Belts and Crash Helmets - Oh, insufficient Transplant Donors - Introduction by Welsh Assembly of Presumed Consent and increased pressure on Relatives to give Consent for Organ Donation.

Yea, but I have pointed out that direct NHS costs as the total cost to GDP is likely an understatement.

There in lies the flaw/incompleteness in Snowdon's method.

If an analysis such as his is to be done, it needs to be done at more considered level taking into account various ground realities.

The other point I raised was basically. You wouldn't surely advocate that people use more alcohol and tobacco would you?

An argument, hypothetically, could be made for not less but increased consumption of alcohol and tobacco because then NHS finances would be in even better shape.

I am interested less in the statistician/economist in you than experienced medical practitioner at high level.

As analogy, in the US, in the late 1980s, the US Doe introduced Carbon pollution units in similar vein. The question really then boils down to question of degree that one allows it, and the true cost, rather than some arbitrary metric that substitutes for more realistic cost.

 

[WelshGas]

You have either inadvertently or deliberately missed Tom's point.

Which was about opportunity costs. If people spend disposable income on other products which do not require medical treatment then the Govt gets to keep all the value added tax.

In other words. C is zero. Further I previously highlighted the very practical issue with estimating C.

Snowdon claims it is exactly the figure NHS provide. I say this is a mathematical lower bound. The actual cost, in fractions of GDP, will be some multiple of Snowdon's C.

But think of the Pension savings of all those unclaimed pensions and other benefits. On which side of the equation do they go?

I'm just a simple medic - see - diagnose - treat to the best of my ability with, I'm proud to say, some good results. I think I'll leave all this analysis and The Crispin Family use of underpants, prefer boxers myself, to the " Chattering Classes " as they seem to get some kick out of it.
I'm sure you'll find someone else to argue the toss with, and I'm sure you and The Crispin Family would get on well together. You're almost next door to each other.

 

[Amarillo]

Nowhere have I advocated the use of Tobacco products or excess Alcohol .

Nowhere have I suggested that you do. You have, however, championed the economic benefits of tobacco and alcohol use.

The NHS is in financial trouble and at present those who consume these products are in fact net contributors rather than net users to government finances and hence the NHS.

I expect that is some distance wide of the mark. If it were true, all Mr Sube need do to silence his critics is take up smoking.

Certainly some smokers and some drinkers will be net contributors, and I expect your statement was intended to suggest that on average smokers and drinkers are net contributors. Even that I doubt can be true. Would the country be better off if everyone smoked or if no one smoked? I strongly suspect we would be better off if no one smoked.