Health Nanny statistics

We all know what Mark Twain thought of statistics. They have their uses, granted, to identify a possible trend, to establish cause and effect, but sometimes I suspect we in the public domain take it all with a pinch of salt (though not too much of that, of course!)

The news/media reports are not helpful, since they provide only a soundbite, a few paragraphs, and don’t always cite the sample population size the results from which the latest survey is gleaned.

Take the pronouncement by the UK’s Chief Medical Officer, Sally Davies in January this year: “the beneficial effects of alcohol are an old wives’ tale”. She also said something along the lines of “Whenever I consider having a drink of wine, I decide if the risk of cancer is worth it.” In effect, “There was no safe level of alcohol.” Poppycock.

The whole abstinence quango is exposed here, if you’re interested.

Wikipedia commons

The initial ‘units of alcohol’ formulation was at its inception arbitrary, anyway. The latest UK recommended ‘dosage’ of alcohol per week for men and women is 14 (it used to be 14 for women, 21 for men). This doesn’t take account of the different strengths of beer and wine, not to mention spirits. It doesn’t take account of the size of individuals. It’s a scare story, designed to make us feel guilty.

‘An international study of about 6,000 men and 11,000 women for a total of 75,000 person-years found that people who reported that they drank more than a threshold value of 2 units of alcohol a day had a higher risk of fractures than non-drinkers. For example, those who drank over 3 units a day had nearly twice the risk of a hip fracture.’ – Wikipedia, unit of alcohol. Now, that I can believe!

Yes, of course, excessive alcohol intake is dangerous, it seriously affects internal organs, it can destroy health and families. Yet the majority of people throughout the world drink moderately, and research worldwide has suggested that imbibing red wine in particular is good for you (in moderation); it’s part of the Mediterranean diet, as it happens!

Yes, we should exercise more.

Yes, we shouldn’t eat junk food.

Yes, we shouldn’t drink to excess.

All of these assertions about doing harm to our health suggest that we indulge in a continuous diet of junk food, live a sedentary life-style in front of the TV, and guzzle booze till we fall asleep.  If you have a balanced diet and drink moderately, what’s the problem?

These pontificators are not only wrong, they’re insulting. Insulting our intelligence.

It’s the Nanny State mentality. Nanny knows best. [I was going to title this post ‘Health Nazis’ but I’ll settle on ‘Health Nannies’ – though ninnies might be as appropriate.

It’s ‘blame the moderate majority for the excesses of the minority’. It’s easier.

Cheers!

Writealot blog stats-1

Chart - Wikipedia commons

Although I started this blog on January 15, 2009, I really didn't write posts regularly until last year, when I ceased being the commissioning editor of Solstice Publishing in the US. That severance freed up time for me to concentrate on my own projects, and in particular allowed time to put more than my toe into the social media, such as Facebook, Twitter and blogging.

I may have been writing commercial fiction and articles for over 40 years, but with regard to the social media I'm still a novice compared to many. 

Whatever the subject, I try to make the blog posts interesting, and not only shouts of 'buy my book, buy my book'. Some seem to succeed, others don't. When I post about reviews of my books, I'm sharing my pleasure rather than bragging. (Naturally, I don't tend to share the poor reviews, which we all get!)

The blog statistics are quite fascinating, I must admit, and they may prove of interest, so here are a few.

In just over 5 years I've written 534 posts, and there are 761 comments (including my responses). [Now, I tend to post daily, whereas before it was much less frequent; if I'd posted daily from the outset, then my posts would be 1,500 or so... ]

Currently, the average monthly page-views are about 3,500; (new readers are welcome every day!) 

Since that tentative beginning in 2009, 69,228 page views have been registered.

From day to day the 'audience' or readers will vary, but today, for example, here are the countries where readers of my blog reside, in order of volume/numbers:

US
UK
Turkey
Ukraine
Canada
France
China
Germany
Spain
Indonesia

So, thanks to all those individuals in the above countries (and others doubtless not listed in today's snapshot!) for taking time out to read my blog. I hope I can continue to provide material of interest in the weeks and months ahead.

Adios!

It figures, maybe

Yesterday’s blog drew some comment on the blog and on FaceBook. Again, I emphasise that the statistics are not mine, but gleaned from a newspaper’s graphic. And the argument is against the big publishers, not the independents.

In my library I have a book printed in 1980, long before e-books, and it gives a breakdown on where the money went on a hardback novel then.  It makes interesting reading, even now.

 

 

BRITAIN

Author – 10%

Text printing and paper – 5.6%
Jacket printing and paper – 1.8%
Binding and freight – 2.6%
Bookseller – 41%
Publisher’s overheads – 20.6%
Publisher’s profit – 9.2%
Composition and plate making – 8.6%
Jacket design and artwork - .6%
 
USA

Author – 10%

Text printing and paper – 3.7%
Jacket printing and paper – 1.5%
Binding and freight – 4.7%
Bookseller – 47%
Publisher’s overheads – 23.9%
Publisher’s profit – 1.3%
Composition and plate making – 6.7%
Jacket design and artwork - 1.2%

The differences are accounted for, apparently, as the example is based on a print run of 5,000. The ‘British market is smaller; a sale of 5,000 copies in Britain is above average; in the US it is close to the norm.’

- Novels and Novelists, Editor Martin Seymour-Smith, 1980.

Now, I’ll just look at the British figures, as if enlightened by the e-book arrival:

Sure, figures have probably altered over 34 years – though not in the authors’ favour. And who said publishers react quickly? As John D MacDonald said, ‘If you would be thrilled by the galloping advance of a glacier, then you’d be ecstatic watching changes in publishing.' They were late to grasp the e-book nettle and then discovered they could profit hugely...

 

Anyway, back to the chase. If we exclude all the print associated overheads (say, 39.2%), we arrive at 60.8% of the cover price. So, at a rough-and-ready estimate, the e-book cover price should be at least 39% less than the print version. I suspect that is not the case for new e-books coming from the big 5 (or however few are left after the latest amalgamation, conglomeration, takeover).

 
Author – 10%
Bookseller – 41%
Publisher’s profit – 9.2%
Jacket design and artwork - .6%
Total percentage of cover price = 60.8%

[All of the following are probably associated with a print version, not e-book]
Publisher’s overheads – 20.6%
Text printing and paper – 5.6%
Jacket printing and paper – 1.8%
Binding and freight – 2.6%
Composition and plate making – 8.6%
Total percentage in this group – 39.2%
 
Mark Twain had something to say about statistics. I’m sure he had a view on percentages, as well. Even so, it’s plain as a pikestaff, to use an out-dated cliché, that certain publishers are attempting a form of profiteering where e-books are concerned.

(The earlier mid-16^th century phrase was ‘plain as a packstaff’, which alluded to the staff on which a pedlar carried his pack, which was in plain view. Amphitryon, III, Dryden.)

Tomorrow, back to a non-controversial subject, perhaps…