The main difference is between largely ‘solved’ and developing problems. Developing problems usually have quite clear causations.

Solved (actually in-progress) problems typically have had a large amount of work already done on them. So all of the easy fixes have been long done. The moderate fixes have pretty much been done. You’re left with the bloody hard to quantify, really hard to justify, and a lot of little projects with lousy cost-benefits because of they are all experimental.

Essentially a variant of Pareto’s law. Shows up in engineering, programming, and almost everything.

So if you were looking at where you toss money to solve health issues, you probably wouldn’t toss it at roads. Ditto economic (after all wealth is created by people).

I’d love to see some cost/benefit comparison between improving a road and reducing obesity at present. This is just a little stir bearing in mind your interest areas. I can actually see the same thing in the electioneering data I’m playing with at present (helping with peoples targeting) – the difference between mined (out) and virgin electorates.

“The major drivers of the increase in obesity rates have been changing dietary and physical activity patterns, reflecting an environment that promotes the over-consumption of energy-dense foods and drinks and limits the opportunities for physical activity.”

and…

“There is no conclusive evidence on the reasons for the reduction in road casualties since 1986. Better roads and better vehicles, as well as legislation, enforcement and education aimed at reducing road casualties, may all have contributed to an improvement in drivers’ attitudes and behaviour.”

So, in an area where we have incredibly detailed and accurate statistics going back almost a century “no conclusions can be drawn”, but where the statistics are broad, imprecise and mostly post-WWII we can identify the main causes and sub-causes?

I’ll have to read through the whole report now to see which of these contradictory positions is dominant.

Hi Brett. I’m trying to make a decent living. Have you got a point? No? Gee, what a surprise.

<boggles>”tribe”, “girls”</boggles>

Re: Māori language proficiency

There are Scribe and they’re pretty good, but the number of older Te Reo speakers dying over the past few years has clearly outstripping those becoming proficient in the language

The report itself shows that the proportion of Māori speakers in the Māori population has decreased at every age groups between the 2001 and 2006 census.

Disappointing really

A fascinating picture of New Zealand. It shows where we’re doing well, and where we’re failing. If you’re a Pacific Island youth in South Auckland you’re far more likely to be poor, lonely, and struggling. Things like this are just the kind of evidence based policy-making instruments we need, rather than Governments and oppositions bending to the idiots who populate talkback radio (and increasingly the internet). I hope sanity prevails.

I second that. This comment could be construed as “The commentator is a moron who writes before thinking”

…instead of thinking.

There you go, fixed that for you.