Win (the Oscars) or Die (Sooner)

So. There´s this new(-ish) book out [reviewed here], written by a renowned epidemiologist at University College London, which argues that when it comes to health and longevity, absolute measures of wealth or poverty may only be the tip of the iceberg.

In fact, it says, the key factor may be the relative level of inequality in a society.

And what´s really intriguing is...
[Click blue ellipsis for the rest!] that the correlation between health and inequality is reflected not only in society as a whole, but also within each of a variety of social groups studied. This applies even within the most successful segments of society, in which presumably there would not be significant differences in terms of access to health care or basic resources.

--> And here´s where the bit about Hollywood comes in: It turns out that actors who have won an Oscar live, on average, about four years longer than those who were nominated for the award but missed out-- Quite a statistically significant difference, for such a seemingly trivial (from a physical health perspective) distinction!

Thus, the author surmises, it comes down to gradients in social status.

Hence the apt title~ The Status Syndrome: How Social Standing Affects Our Health and Longevity by Sir Michael Marmot

A New England Journal of Medicine Review clarifies the distinction he makes between poverty and inequality:
>>
Poverty, he explains, deprives people of the capabilities to lead the lives they would wish to lead. If you have little money, "more money would benefit health, but if you have more of it, then it is how much more you have compared to other people in your society that is more important for health." Poverty doesn't drive ill health, he writes. Inequality does. In rich countries, Marmot continues, most people have the basic resources necessary for life.
But they do not have, as [his] studies demonstrated, control over their lives — the power to live as they want. The lower that people stand in the hierarchy, the less they have a sense of controlling their own destiny. Low control leads to chronic stress. High-status work, on the other hand, tends to be associated with greater control, more power, and better health.
>>

A revolutionary idea, but seems pretty convincing as an explanation for why relatively poorer countries (like Cuba) can end up having health figures as good or better than major economic powerhouses such as the US. And it suggests a clear but difficult mandate for improving global health: reduce inequality.

To finish with a quote of his from the article:

"You might say the whole thing is inevitable: let us just give up and go home. Let's start worrying about obesity again. My argument is it is not inevitable. Hierarchies are inevitable. But how hierarchies translate into differences in health is the crucial question."

.

A similar remark to the one once made by writer F. Scott Fitzgerald:

“The mark of a first class intellect is the ability to keep two conflicting ideas in mind at the same time … such as, this is an impossible situation, and here is how we are going to solve it.”