proposed changes to official figures that the ONS says will provide “an improved and more efficient health and social care statistical landscape”.
Ah yes, because the first thing I always think when reading about any deaths among the homeless is 'is this statistical landscape efficient?'
You should. If government level decisions are being made based on this data, we should know that it's sound. Otherwise people resort to using gut feel to solve problems.
That ship has sailed, the stock market is just a measure of rich people's gut feelings and we've done wars over it.
In dystopian North Vuvuzela, the corporations buy up all the housing and make people homeless, and then they bribe the government to pretend nobody is dying on the streets. Your boss can fire you for protesting against genocide and just like that, you're an invisible non-person
This is the best summary I could come up with:
An official count of the deaths of homeless people would no longer be published in England and Wales under proposals to increase the efficiency of health data that campaigners have called “callous”.
The plan is included in a series of proposed changes to official figures that the ONS says will provide “an improved and more efficient health and social care statistical landscape”.
The homelessness charity Crisis, which is urging the government to make a U-turn, said the plan was “deeply concerning, and will only ensure this needless suffering continues out of sight”.
“The injustice faced by people dying on the street must not go unreported,” said Francesca Albanese, executive director of policy and social change at the charity.
Taylor said scrapping the statistic would be “a very callous thing to do at a time when we know there is an absolute crisis in homelessness and more people are dying”.
But Sophie Boobis, head of policy, said: “With homelessness and rough sleeping increasing, we should be investing further in this important data series rather than scrapping it, allowing ourselves the chance to prevent further premature deaths.”
The original article contains 433 words, the summary contains 185 words. Saved 57%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
