the snap general election thread

CKhalvashi

GreatApe wrote: »

Well this is the best I can do for you


Let's assume all fire deaths are in flats
And that sprinklers could save 80% of them so 240 lives a year
Let's assume 20% of the UK housing stock are flats

That means 5.6 million flats at a cost of £6k per property works out to £33.6 billion
These things need replacing every 50 years and using a discount rate of 4% it works out to £1.56 billion per year in perpetuity. That cost does not include maintiance or other additional costs

1.56 billion divided by 240 lives saved = £6.5 million per life
And remember we assumed we fit sprinklers to just flats and that would save all fire deaths so its a big underestimate

Still well above what we value life for in the NHS.


So as I keel saying fire is such a negligible risk in this day and age that even if it was 10 x as common sprinkler systems would make no sense

Ah, we're back to Diane Abbott maths.

How many of these flats are high rise? Many aren't, so there's a significant saving already.

How do you work out £6k per system? a '4 zone' sprinkler system (which should be fine for most flats) retails at less than £300. Surely it's not going to cost £5700 to fit it? I'd take a guess you're realistically looking at no more than about £1500 all in. Maintenance can surely be done at the same time as gas inspections, so no additional (or negligible additional) cost, right?

So, we're at 20% of flats being high rise of your 5.6 million, with a £1500 cost, plus £10 a year maintenance, agreed?

So, that'll be £1.7bn (rounded up), plus £12m a year (rounded up), or an additional £480m over your 40 years.

Divide the £2.3bn (rounded up again) by 40, and we're at £60m per year (again rounded up), then divide that by the estimated 50 people a year (based on 20% of apartments) that will save = £1,2m per building, then divide that by the average household size of 2.3 for £520000 per life.

Assuming the average household is 1.5 adults and 0.7 children with an average age of 45 and 9 respectively, both living to 80, you have a total average household age of 73.8 years, with a total average household life expectancy of 184 years.

You therefore have £520k, divided by 110 years, or less than £5000 a year of life on average, which is 20% of the NHS funding.

This is before we've saved on the costs of fire services, the NHS on providing emergency care for large amounts of people, costs of rehousing and the £10m inquiry to follow from this, I'd say it would be money well spent.

Sapphire

steampowered wrote: »

One possible conclusion from the report might be that maintenance of social housing is woefully inadequate, in which case councils will need funds to be able to address that.

So who's to fund that? There's all this talk about 'government money'. This is taxpayers' money, which means that people like you (presumably, if you are a taxpayer) and I would have to pay for such 'solutions'. I'm sure that would go down well with taxpayers.

There is too much overcrowding and there are too many people, especially in London, for taxpayers to support all the 'improvements' that would be needed to enable everyone to live in relative luxury (compared with most of the rest of the world), many of them for free.

Yes, there are cuts that could be made, for example to the salaries of highly paid executives in public services such as the BBC and the NHS (along with the curtailment of such practices as 'the revolving door'), and to the use of management consultants who work according to a formula and charge millions for this – and halving the House of Lords could also save money. However, this would help little in the constant and increasing demands on public services, which are also affecting those who do work and have done so for decades, many of whom are not wealthy. Taxing businesses and millionaire bankers would be very desirable – but the fact is that they would just up sticks and go to a country that would be more profitable for them personally, in the process removing wealth from Britain. Globalists who command much of the world's wealth (and therefore power) – and who can spend hundreds of thousands of pounds, or millions, on an 'artwork' – do not care about the populations of individual countries, or about humanity in general.

GreatApe

ThinkingOutLoud wrote: »

I think the point about councils is unlike rogue landlords who need to be influenced into better behaviour - surely they have a fundamental and clear duty to do this without yet more legislation?

Of course there may be some council failing to deliver - that is about holding them to account anyway surely?

Let's say you are a council tenant who pays his own rent. A fire sprinkler system will mean your rent has to go up £25 per month. Is that worthwhile considering you would have to love about 250,000 years for that sprinkler to save you once.

Let's say you are a council tenant and the state pays for your rent. Is it acceptable that the rest of society pays £25 per month to reduce that persons fire death risk by 1 in 250,000 when the same money could achieve 50 x as many life years saved in the NHS?

Herzlos

GreatApe wrote: »

Well this is the best I can do for you


Let's assume all fire deaths are in flats
And that sprinklers could save 80% of them so 240 lives a year
Let's assume 20% of the UK housing stock are flats

According to this: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6748/2173483.pdf

20% of housing stock is flats, of which 9% is high rise, so 2% of housing stock is high rise, and you're off by a factor of 10.

So that's £156m/year.

Then you're quoting £6k/flat, when it's actually under £2k/flat, so we're down to £52m/year.

You're also assuming that all of the 2% of high rise stock doesn't already have a system (since it's required for new builds and major refurbs), so lets say half of them have it fitted. We're now down to £26m/year.

Why would they need replacing every 50 years if they had maintenance?

On top of all the other savings, you potentially save the cost of demolition/rebuilding an entire tower block.

How many sprinkler systems could we fit for the money we're going to have to spend on the restoration of the tower in question (ignoring the costs of rehoming all of the residents).

I do agree with you in theory - we shouldn't spend a fortune on stuff with no real benefit (like most of the restrictions of freedom we're calling anti-terrorism, or Trident), but your math/justification on this one is way off. Like, at least 6000% off.

CKhalvashi

Herzlos wrote: »

According to this: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6748/2173483.pdf

20% of housing stock is flats, of which 9% is high rise, so 2% of housing stock is high rise, and you're off by a factor of 10.

So that's £156m/year.

Then you're quoting £6k/flat, when it's actually under £2k/flat, so we're down to £52m/year.

You're also assuming that all of the 2% of high rise stock doesn't already have a system (since it's required for new builds and major refurbs), so lets say half of them have it fitted. We're now down to £26m/year.

Why would they need replacing every 50 years?

Thanks Herzlos, looks like my guesstimate wasn't that far out after all if we're fitting all flats, which we're not.

The point I made still stands though

Herzlos

GreatApe wrote: »

Let's say you are a council tenant who pays his own rent. A fire sprinkler system will mean your rent has to go up £25 per month. Is that worthwhile considering you would have to love about 250,000 years for that sprinkler to save you once.

If that were the case I'd agree with you. But lets say the increased cost is actually about 2.5p/month. How does your value assessment fit now?

CKhalvashi

GreatApe wrote: »

Let's say you are a council tenant who pays his own rent. A fire sprinkler system will mean your rent has to go up £25 per month. Is that worthwhile considering you would have to love about 250,000 years for that sprinkler to save you once.

Let's say you are a council tenant and the state pays for your rent. Is it acceptable that the rest of society pays £25 per month to reduce that persons fire death risk by 1 in 250,000 when the same money could achieve 50 x as many life years saved in the NHS?

Ok, so is it fair for the NHS to pay up to £25k per year of quality life for someone who has never worked, or has worked in the past but can't now, as I'll never see a return on that personally? Of course most costs aren't £25k a year, and the cost is less than £1 a week.

The answer to that is yes, because it could be me.

Are you trying to say that the poorest in society shouldn't have protection? Thanks, you've just shown your true colours.

GreatApe

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Ah, we're back to Diane Abbott maths.

How many of these flats are high rise? Many aren't, so there's a significant saving already.

How do you work out £6k per system? a '4 zone' sprinkler system (which should be fine for most flats) retails at less than £300. Surely it's not going to cost £5700 to fit it? I'd take a guess you're realistically looking at no more than about £1500 all in. Maintenance can surely be done at the same time as gas inspections, so no additional (or negligible additional) cost, right?

So, we're at 20% of flats being high rise of your 5.6 million, with a £1500 cost, plus £10 a year maintenance, agreed?

So, that'll be £1.7bn (rounded up), plus £12m a year (rounded up), or an additional £480m over your 40 years.

Divide the £2.3bn (rounded up again) by 40, and we're at £60m per year (again rounded up), then divide that by the estimated 50 people a year (based on 20% of apartments) that will save = £1,2m per building, then divide that by the average household size of 2.3 for £520000 per life.

Assuming the average household is 1.5 adults and 0.7 children with an average age of 45 and 9 respectively, both living to 80, you have a total average household age of 73.8 years, with a total average household life expectancy of 184 years.

You therefore have £520k, divided by 110 years, or less than £5000 a year of life on average, which is 20% of the NHS funding.

This is before we've saved on the costs of fire services, the NHS on providing emergency care for large amounts of people, costs of rehousing and the £10m inquiry to follow from this, I'd say it would be money well spent.

No. You have made many error assumptions and have forgotten the fact that we already started with a grossly bad assumption which was assuming all fore deaths were in flats and bin in homes.

There are other factors you are unaware of which make the figures worse.
For instance fire kills mostly the old (65+) and even more so the 80+
Fire kills mostly single person households.
You have not included the time value of money
You also seem to be confusing property fires with deaths
Your cost for sprinklers is a guess I searched for actual quotes which say between £3k to £9k
Yes the sprinkler heads are cheap but the labor to install them isn't


If only 4% of properties are high rise that is 1,120,000 properties
At £6k a property its £6.72 billion
That is a cost of £311 million annually in perpetuity (50 year life 4% discount rate)

Now how many people do you save. About 300 fire deaths a year. Let's pretend half of all fore deaths are in this 4% high rise buildings which is probably a gross over estimate. And let's assume the sprinklers are able to save 90% of them. This you save 140 persons per year at a cost of £311 million or £2.22 million per life

Average age in the UK is 40 and life expectancy is let's say 80. That means you save 40 years per person saved actually likely 30 years as fore kills mostly the old. So let's say 30 years.

You then have a figure of £75k per life saved. Which is still 3 x as high as the NHS is willing to pay. Yes there will be some saving in property damage but that's likely to be trivial as you are costing life in the millions.


And remember we did this assuming half of all deaths happen in just this 4% of high rose flats. Which effectively means we are assuming you are 12 x as nore likely to die from fire in a High rise flat than in other properties. That is very likely a terrible estimate for all we know the figure might actually be that you are less likely to die from fire in a low rise seeing as fores in high rise buildings are much less likely to spread beyond the room they started or beyond the floor they started some 1/3rd as likely.

CKhalvashi

GreatApe wrote: »

You then have a figure of £75k per life saved. Which is still 3 x as high as the NHS is willing to pay. Yes there will be some saving in property damage but that's likely to be trivial as you are costing life in the millions.

You've conveniently quoted for a system costing 3 times as much as reality, so there is your saving

GreatApe

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Ok, so is it fair for the NHS to pay up to £25k per year of quality life for someone who has never worked, or has worked in the past but can't now, as I'll never see a return on that personally? Of course most costs aren't £25k a year, and the cost is less than £1 a week.

The answer to that is yes, because it could be me.

Are you trying to say that the poorest in society shouldn't have protection? Thanks, you've just shown your true colours.

Where did I say anything like that if you are going to make !!!! up let's call this debate off right now

I am trying to show fire is a negligible risk its such a low risk that people are 3 x as likely to die from a domestic fall than a fire. Trying to mitigate such negligible risks with high cost countermeasures will do more harm than good

Who are you to say to a council tenant who pays their own rent they they HAVE to have a rent increase of £25 per month to pay for counter measures which are probably only worth £1pm to them?

Who are you to say society must provide costly counter measures to the poorest when Soviet isn't willing to provide this to themselves.