THERE is no such thing as sickness in Britain. It’s all a myth. All those people visiting GPs and hospitals? Pathetic. Sure, they feel ill; many even have clear symptoms. But they’re not really ill.

You want proper sickness? You should see what our grandparents’ generation had to put up with. Diphtheria. Smallpox. Typhoid fever. Those were proper diseases; truly horrible conditions that brought misery and pain.

Sure, we have people today who are less healthy than others. But real sickness? No, not in Britain, not in the 21st century, no siree.

If you found yourself nodding with these opening paragraphs, then please go for a lie down. If you are baffled and dismayed by such apparent disdain for the very many unfortunate and ill people in our society, then rest easy.

The majority, I hope, will see it as illogical to belittle health problems because they are less severe than those in past generations.

It is clearly unhelpful to say we should rein back our efforts to cure conditions and ease suffering, simply because today’s health problems are – by and large – less calamitous than those in past decades or centuries.

It’s faux-logic, but that’s exactly what bursts forth in waves whenever anybody tries to talk about another social issue: poverty.

This year has been miserable for many. Soaring living costs and stagnating wages have created a perfect storm that has engulfed millions.

The Trussell Trust, which runs most of Britain’s food banks, is now feeding the best part of a million people a year. About 3.5 million UK children are living in relative poverty.

In York, various organisations are jointly trying to ease and reduce the suffering, but almost without fail when such initiatives have been launched and reported, a small hardcore of deniers have clambered on to their soapboxes.

Some cite appalling housing conditions their own families once endured. Others point to a lack of material possessions many years ago. The precise wording varies but the recurrent message is the same: We had real poverty. You have it lucky by comparison.

To those people, I say this: Yes, you are correct – the poorest houses today are better than the poorest ones 60 years ago, and certain possessions now taken for granted (a phone? – how lavish!) were not always commonplace.

But why use the ills and injustices of 60 or more years ago as our benchmark for today? Why hark back to a generation from which many did not, in fact, emerge unscathed but in which life expectancy was lower and childhood mortality higher?

The dismissive sniping of the critics essentially says we should stop pushing to further improve society because we have already bettered it. It’s unambitious at best; cruel at worst.

Society tackles social problems over time. That’s progress; it’s what we do. Look how we have reduced inequality based on gender, race and sexuality; overcome many of those illnesses mentioned earlier; or improved road safety.

It’s short-sighted fatalism, then, to rest on our laurels, idle and self-satisfied, and allow surmountable crises to continue.

To show the folly of the deniers’ logic, apply it elsewhere. Should we stop trying to improve transport links because hey, it used to take four days to travel from York to London so what’s an extra hour today? Should schools avoid teaching children about new technology because their grandparents were content with pencil and paper? Of course not.

To belittle anti-poverty discussions by saying we had worse problems in the past is stunted logic.

It is reminiscent of the one-upmanship of Monty Python’s “Four Yorkshiremen” sketch; the one in which well-dressed gentlemen sip fine wine while recounting increasingly exaggerated tales of the hardship they endured as children. That sketch, once a classic parody, is at risk of losing its satire.

Any society can be measured by how it treats its most vulnerable. The widespread demonisation of those going through poverty and the perpetuation of hostile and heartless myths is a deeply disturbing reflection on ours.

The severe problems we have already overcome should not be a reason to stop fighting poverty. They should be an inspiration to show what is possible when there is a united refusal to accept inaction in the face of injustice.

As we look towards another new year that will be far from happy for many, and despite the disdain from the sidelines, we should welcome York’s refusal to give up.