Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

There's No 'Safe' Level of Alcohol Consumption, Global Study Finds

livescience.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 101 posts

Re: There's No 'Safe' Level of Alcohol Consumption, Global Study Finds

#21

Post by nothrabannosir »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #17
robbick wrote: post #3

A brilliant excerpt from the end of the bbc article[0]: Yet Prof David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor for the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge, sounded a note of caution about the findings. "Given the pleasure presumably associated with moderate drinking, claiming there is no 'safe' level does not seem an argument for abstention," he said. "There is no safe level of driving, but the govern…

Fatuous remark by that professor. Drinking doesn't get you to work etc. Its entirely dispensable. I read (here) that 10% of liquor stores' customers are half the volume. So the lesson probably applies mostly to those 10% who think "one drink a day" is a reasonable thing. The other 90% are risking very little, especially if they do their drinking at home.

> Drinking doesn't get you to work

Speak for yourself.

Re: There's No 'Safe' Level of Alcohol Consumption, Global Study Finds

#22

Post by Nav_Panel »

robbick wrote: post #3

A brilliant excerpt from the end of the bbc article[0]: Yet Prof David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor for the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge, sounded a note of caution about the findings. "Given the pleasure presumably associated with moderate drinking, claiming there is no 'safe' level does not seem an argument for abstention," he said. "There is no safe level of driving, but the govern…

This gave me an interesting idea for a thought experiment (do NOT read this as a recommendation): imagine the (US) government, instead of discouraging drinking, required a mandatory n (4?) drinks/week to healthy adults, and sent out free drink vouchers.

What effects would this policy have on social cohesion (or happiness) among adults? What would the downsides be?

EDIT: yes, obvious downsides are obvious. What I find interesting is the idea of the government providing a small mandate that then creates emergent social change, by virtue of everyone having to do it.

For example, the OP is about "no safe level of alcohol consumption" and recommends a policy change to decrease the recommendation. But what ends does this achieve? What sorts of government policies might encourage people to solve the problems that are making them unhappy? That's the kind of thing I'm trying to figure out.

Re: There's No 'Safe' Level of Alcohol Consumption, Global Study Finds

#23

Post by barking »

frank_s wrote: post #7

One of the good points about alcohol (there aren't many): It is a strong anxiolytic and is readily available 'over the counter' which means people can self-medicate themselves in times of crisis. How many lives has that saved? Most medical studies tell you significantly more about the prejudices of the authors and/or who paid for the study. This one seems no different in that regard. I have an interest in the matter…

I'd like to know why you say you're an alcoholic.

Re: There's No 'Safe' Level of Alcohol Consumption, Global Study Finds

#24

Post by JoeAltmaier »

Nav_Panel wrote: post #22
robbick wrote: post #3

A brilliant excerpt from the end of the bbc article[0]: Yet Prof David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor for the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge, sounded a note of caution about the findings. "Given the pleasure presumably associated with moderate drinking, claiming there is no 'safe' level does not seem an argument for abstention," he said. "There is no safe level of driving, but the govern…

This gave me an interesting idea for a thought experiment (do NOT read this as a recommendation): imagine the (US) government, instead of discouraging drinking, required a mandatory n (4?) drinks/week to healthy adults, and sent out free drink vouchers. What effects would this policy have on social cohesion (or happiness) among adults? What would the downsides be? EDIT: yes, obvious downsides are obvious. What I find…

Some of us would feel nauseous and ill the rest of our lives

Re: There's No 'Safe' Level of Alcohol Consumption, Global Study Finds

#25

Post by finaliteration »

barking wrote: post #19
hobs wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GP clearly notes they are an alcoholic, so I wouldn't say the responder is conflating anything.

So what's an alcoholic? Seems to me that almost all drinkers are, seeing as how most of them find it nicer to keep drinking.

If we shouldn’t conflate having a single drink with alcohol-dependency then we also shouldn’t conflate the occasional drinker with those who are struggling with alcohol-dependency.

Re: There's No 'Safe' Level of Alcohol Consumption, Global Study Finds

#26

Post by base698 »

marak830 wrote: post #10
robbick wrote: post #3

A brilliant excerpt from the end of the bbc article[0]: Yet Prof David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor for the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge, sounded a note of caution about the findings. "Given the pleasure presumably associated with moderate drinking, claiming there is no 'safe' level does not seem an argument for abstention," he said. "There is no safe level of driving, but the govern…

"Come to think of it, there is no safe level of living, but nobody would recommend abstention." I think I have found my new motto :-)

"Never take life too seriously, no one gets out alive."

Re: There's No 'Safe' Level of Alcohol Consumption, Global Study Finds

#27

Post by swsieber »

Nav_Panel wrote: post #22
robbick wrote: post #3

A brilliant excerpt from the end of the bbc article[0]: Yet Prof David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor for the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge, sounded a note of caution about the findings. "Given the pleasure presumably associated with moderate drinking, claiming there is no 'safe' level does not seem an argument for abstention," he said. "There is no safe level of driving, but the govern…

This gave me an interesting idea for a thought experiment (do NOT read this as a recommendation): imagine the (US) government, instead of discouraging drinking, required a mandatory n (4?) drinks/week to healthy adults, and sent out free drink vouchers. What effects would this policy have on social cohesion (or happiness) among adults? What would the downsides be? EDIT: yes, obvious downsides are obvious. What I find…

Some people would become alcholics. It is that easy for some people.

Re: There's No 'Safe' Level of Alcohol Consumption, Global Study Finds

#28

Post by vinni2 »

Nav_Panel wrote: post #22
robbick wrote: post #3

A brilliant excerpt from the end of the bbc article[0]: Yet Prof David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor for the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge, sounded a note of caution about the findings. "Given the pleasure presumably associated with moderate drinking, claiming there is no 'safe' level does not seem an argument for abstention," he said. "There is no safe level of driving, but the govern…

This gave me an interesting idea for a thought experiment (do NOT read this as a recommendation): imagine the (US) government, instead of discouraging drinking, required a mandatory n (4?) drinks/week to healthy adults, and sent out free drink vouchers. What effects would this policy have on social cohesion (or happiness) among adults? What would the downsides be? EDIT: yes, obvious downsides are obvious. What I find…

Followers of the religions which prohibit alcohol drinking would be pissed and may cause social unrest? and USA would not be a secular country anymore?

Edit: typos

Re: There's No 'Safe' Level of Alcohol Consumption, Global Study Finds

#29

Post by QasimK »

robbick wrote: post #3

A brilliant excerpt from the end of the bbc article[0]: Yet Prof David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor for the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge, sounded a note of caution about the findings. "Given the pleasure presumably associated with moderate drinking, claiming there is no 'safe' level does not seem an argument for abstention," he said. "There is no safe level of driving, but the govern…

Drinking and (often, necessary) driving are not comparable, so the commenter could have chosen a better comparison.

Edit: Based on comments in this thread, there are a lot of different perspectives on how comparable these two activities are. I still think there are many significantly "better" examples that could have been given.

Re: There's No 'Safe' Level of Alcohol Consumption, Global Study Finds

#30

Post by vilhelm_s »

raffael-vogler wrote: post #11

> The three leading causes of attributable deaths in this age group were tuberculosis (1·4% [95% UI 1·0–1·7] of total deaths), road injuries (1·2% [0·7–1·9]), and self-harm (1·1% [0·6–1·5]). TBC is still an infectious disease and road injuries are preventable by simply not driving after having had a drink and self-harm is rather unlikely after a bottle of beer. > and the level of consumption that minimises health los…

It's not a triviality. The background is that there have been quite a few studied published which claimed that drinking moderately had health benefits over not drinking at all (you see those headlines every now and then, "a glass of wine/week reduces risk of heart attack", or whatever).

The statistics behind those studies are a bit dodgy, because they investigate just one disease (heart attacks, say) instead of total health effect, and because they are confounded by people who are tee-totalers because they were alcoholics (https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/04/did-drinking-gi...). But many people say that they have a big negative impact on public health, because they allow people to rationalize their drinking---instead of thinking it's unhealthy they can go "oh, but it's good for my heart".

Post reply on HN