How is sort of blantant false conclusion drawing still tolerated when the audience is supposed to be educated? There are a myriad of reasons why people who have trouble making rent also live in environments and make decisions that shorten their lifespan. It's like saying "being poor means you die sooner", yeah, no kidding.
What's next? People who buy new cars in cash live longer? People who have good retirement savings live longer? What am I missing here, is this just a research someone is doing for science reasons and pop-sci site is drawing false click-bait conclusions? But they are speaking in the first person, and making claims that the rental situation directly affects age and health when they also state that it is purely a correlation.
Methods: We use data on housing and DNA methylation from the UK Household Longitudinal Study, linked with prior survey responses from the British Household Panel Survey, covering adults in Great Britain. We explore the association between epigenetic ageing and housing circumstances, both contemporary and historical, using hierarchical regression.
> Every year of private renting was associated with an extra 2.4 weeks of aging on average.
The alleged solution.
> Our finding that renting social housing was no different to outright ownership lends weight to calls for greater support for social housing.
As for
> I suspect the authors are across your concerns and perhaps understand them as well, if not better, than you might.
This study is in the same category as any other study undertaken in service of a political goal. The authors would not publish a study that disagrees with their politics anymore than cigarette companies prior to the days of public awareness would have published a study showing cigarettes as anything other than utterly harmless.
The days of expecting any semi-coherent audience to stop thinking and accept everything that follows as fact as soon as the words "scientific research" and "professor" appear are long, long gone.
Their correlation is an obvious and well established one. But they are wording it such that the fact that you have insecure rent payment is directly causing biological degradation. Which is absolutley bonkers. Perhaps the stress, or some other factor, sure. I mean, the main thing missing here is evidence of causation. How is the rent situation causing this exactly, forget evidence even a hypothesis of something, I don't know maybe a rent gene lol.
This smeels like a combination of lazy science and politically driven scince. They want to affect some sort of policy so they made the "science" say what they want it to say. Fraud by any other word.
If they actually investigate the cause of action behind their observation perhaps better health care might be the answer or even in a policy sense, better pay or having food and resources in poor areas that promote good health might be a solution. They specificically focused on rent!
And people wonder why there is such little trust in science these days.
I never questioned their credential, I questioned the publication's and their intent. Scientists are people too, they are capable of bias and bad-faith like anyone else.
Readit News
What's next? People who buy new cars in cash live longer? People who have good retirement savings live longer? What am I missing here, is this just a research someone is doing for science reasons and pop-sci site is drawing false click-bait conclusions? But they are speaking in the first person, and making claims that the rental situation directly affects age and health when they also state that it is purely a correlation.
https://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2023/08/17/jech-2023-2205...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_of_varianceNote that one of the three authors is a Professor of Biological and Social Epidemiology, University of Essex
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology
That's literally a science of teasing small factors out of noisy data in a turgid sea of messy correlations.
I suspect the authors are across your concerns and perhaps understand them as well, if not better, than you might.
> Every year of private renting was associated with an extra 2.4 weeks of aging on average.
The alleged solution.
> Our finding that renting social housing was no different to outright ownership lends weight to calls for greater support for social housing.
As for
> I suspect the authors are across your concerns and perhaps understand them as well, if not better, than you might.
This study is in the same category as any other study undertaken in service of a political goal. The authors would not publish a study that disagrees with their politics anymore than cigarette companies prior to the days of public awareness would have published a study showing cigarettes as anything other than utterly harmless.
The days of expecting any semi-coherent audience to stop thinking and accept everything that follows as fact as soon as the words "scientific research" and "professor" appear are long, long gone.
This smeels like a combination of lazy science and politically driven scince. They want to affect some sort of policy so they made the "science" say what they want it to say. Fraud by any other word.
If they actually investigate the cause of action behind their observation perhaps better health care might be the answer or even in a policy sense, better pay or having food and resources in poor areas that promote good health might be a solution. They specificically focused on rent!
And people wonder why there is such little trust in science these days.
I never questioned their credential, I questioned the publication's and their intent. Scientists are people too, they are capable of bias and bad-faith like anyone else.