What we are talking about when we make comparisons of health outcomes between areas are social determinants (or influencers) of health, or SDOH - which also apply within countries and even between different areas of the same city.

To take a place some of us know very well, there is an 8-year difference in life expectancy between leafy South Gosforth and the rather grittier suburb of Byker in Newcastle. Similar patterns exist all over the UK and the world.
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fly...a512cc547b.gif

It is very easy and perhaps tempting for some of us to pin these differences all on individual responsibility - "if people didn't eat junk food, they wouldn't get obese". But there is a wealth of evidence that these issues are multi-factorial and in many cases the link between individual and social factors are highly complex. For example, poor diet and nutrition depends partly on what food is actually available, and even terms like 'food deserts' - a lack of access to affordable, good quality food in a given area - conceal a wealth of factors influencing spatial patterns such as transportation, economics, and time utilisation.

Similarly, economic factors - such as high unemployment, low education, and poor job prospects - can make people more susceptible to mental health problems (as well as, somewhat self-evidently, financial hardship), which in turn can influence consumption of poor quality food, excessive alcohol, etc.

These links apply across a wide range of domains: children from lower socio-economic backgrounds have already fallen behind those from better-off families even on entry to primary school and that gap tends to grow over time. If you don't do well at school, you are less likely to get a well-paid job, and these cycles can become embedded. And over the last 11 years or so, many of the safety nets which were in place to try and break these cycles in the UK context (things like Sure Start centres, or adequate support if you lose your job) have been removed.

I think it is perhaps too easy for those of us who can afford to fly regularly to be judgemental, as we sip on champagne in a business class seat or in a lounge. Those of us who are fortunate enough to have never experienced some of the worst aspects of deprivation may find it easy to blame all health outcomes on individual choice, but the evidence is that structural factors play a very large role in shaping and constraining those individual choices. I have quite a few friends working in front-line medical roles, including my partner, and in social care - and (despite sometimes being frustrated) they without exception recognise that many of the problems people face are not solely down to individual choice.

Specifically in relation to Covid, we know that deprived areas in the UK have had worse outcomes. If we want to address these issues, we have to address structural factors.

Here is what the Scottish govt has replied to me a few minutes ago about the amber exemptions for quarantining. Any thoughts how they might lean on Tuesday? I can't read the implied messaging.

Daily data:

Cases 32,367 (24,885 last Saturday)
Deaths 34 (18)
Patients admitted 563 (358 on the 29th)
People vaccinated up to and including 9 July 2021:
First dose: 45,786,550
Second dose: 34,541,129

The rolling seven day daily average for cases is now up 30.0% on the previous week and the same measure for deaths is up 62.7%. The rolling 7 day daily average for deaths is 27.4 today.

Unless your question was answered directly by the relevant minister I wouldn’t read anything into it. It’s reads like a standard prepared response from their media book.

Which it was - but obviously govt prepared so I wondered if we can read anything into it. The bit about being fair worries me - easy argument about non-vaccinated people not having the same travel access.

Take it at face value, don’t try to read something into it; lines come after decisions.

Have to admire the Scottish government for thinking that having a different border policy to the one joined directly below it will make any difference whatsoever.

We all know what will happen.. give it two weeks and they'll do the same as Westminster but make it sound like they've reinvented the wheel.

I don't know whether the Scottish government thinks that, but Scotland has as much right to determine its own policy (and make its own mistakes) as any other part of the UK does.

not on immigration it doesn’t.

with regard to entry requirements it can do for public health reasons, but I think most would see with free movement within the UK, deviation between the four parts of the UK on this is a bit ridiculous.

I’m not so sure that of the 4 parts of the U.K. it is Scotland which is deviating from the consensus…

tbf i wasn’t pointing the finger at any one part of the UK, just making the point that uniform rules seem sensible, and non uniform rules really are not.

In practical terms, the Welsh Assembly very much took this view - that once they released people to travel to and from the country for any purpose, it would have been absolutely impossible to stop them flying somewhere given the proximity to north Wales of Manchester and Liverpool.

Most of Scotland has Newcastle or both the airports which the Welsh authorities accepted would effectively trump any attempt to control travel.

I would certainly agree with that, but it's difficult to achieve that when the dominant government in the UK seems determined to ignore scientific evidence and put us in the other nations at risk.

Yes, I agree that’s certainly one way to read it :)

Daily data:

Cases 31,772 (24,248 last Sunday)
Deaths 26 (15)
People vaccinated up to and including 10 July 2021:
First dose: 45,881,721
Second dose: 34,764,511

The rolling seven day daily average for cases is now up 27.3% on the previous week and the same measure for deaths is up 66.4%. The rolling 7 day daily average for deaths is 29.0 today.