6 Comments

Good thing you had the screenshot of the story. Zoom in: not by the health or science writers, but the “Whitehall editor”. Who was possibly pointed towards these numbers and didn’t, or never would, think to say “that seems like a suspiciously big number..”

Expand full comment

Thank goodness there is someone sensible to help us interpret this misleading reporting.

Expand full comment

Spotted this was a nonsense story as soon as I read it, for all the reasons you outline. If hospitals started recording tall stature or blue eyes as a secondary diagnosis we could have stories that really put the wind up tall, blue eyed people due to a massive increase in hospital admissions and cancer diagnoses “linked” to these characteristics.

Expand full comment

Classic of the "recording a problem makes it look like the problem is getting more common, incentivising people to pretend the problem doesn't exist" genre. I would hate for reporting like this to push the NHS into providing more one-size-fits-all care rather than tailoring procedures for patient circumstances like obesity.

Expand full comment

To think that this paper was once the undisputed heavyweight of journalism; the quintessential paper of record.

I have not regretted cancelling my subscription a few years ago.

Expand full comment

Didn’t realise the new Times editor comes from Daily Mail - explains the recent change of tone in the paper more broadly, more headlines as questions, more clickbaity & lightweight....

Expand full comment