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

No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

971–980 of 1001 posts

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#971

Post by HWR_14 »

pvarangot wrote: post #968
HWR_14 wrote: post #806

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Thing is if I smoke even one cigarette like as a digestive after a big dinner once every four months I have to pay 600 dollars of extra health insurance per year because of how all this bullshit messaging about how nicotine works. Really? Where do you live? Because I'm not aware of any country that does this (other than with sin taxes on tobacco).

I live in the US and the 600 extra are binary, the question is "have you used any tobacco products in the past three months?" and a yes means an extra 600 per year. It's not that unusual if you get health insurance through your employer because it drives the cost down for everyone else, and of course scamming money off smokers even if they just casually do it a couple of times every three months is socially accepted.…

I thought you were in the US.

By federal law, you cannot be charged more for smoking a cigarette every four months. You can be charged more for smoking with more regularity. There is a binary cutoff, but the level isn't zero (feds have a minimum level, but states can impose higher ones.). You may want to consult a lawyer if this is something that is really happening and concerns you. Plus, you certainly should consult a lawyer before you change your answer on a the form, in case you are in a grandfathered plan or some other special case.

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#972

Post by dahart »

dionidium wrote: post #969
dahart wrote: post #966

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s extremely heavy and unfounded speculation on your part. How do you know who flies, or what their morals are, or who they know?? You’re now attempting to move the goal posts to a different playing field entirely. Your beef was over radiation, which has extremely low levels of risk compared to air pollution, not the morals of flying. The questions about the environmental impacts of flying is certainly getting en…

I don't care about the morality of flying and I'm not suggesting they should, either. That's the whole point. Of course they use stronger language wrt activities they look down upon than for activities they don't. And maybe that's as it should be! Again, I am asking people to notice when this happens. The CDC hasn’t been “politicized,” in other words; their project is intrinsically political.

> their project is intrinsically political

I don’t think that case has been made here, you’re failing to demonstrate it. I disagree that intrinsic politics has anything whatsoever to do with the safety of smoking vs radiation exposure of air travel.

There are times when other people politicize what the CDC says. Your comments here explicitly and repeatedly attempted to politicize the secondhand smoke recommendations. Covid is also one of them, and it seems like you might be dancing around and hoping to implicate Covid politics while trying not to talk about it directly. The CDC has been actively trying to stay out of the politics and simply help people understand the risks and statistics, and what choices they can make to reduce their risks.

> of course they use stronger language wrt activities they look down upon

They don’t look down on any activities. They report safety stats and safety guidelines. The language is stronger when the mortality rates are higher, period.

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#973

Post by kfrane »

dionidium wrote: post #969
dahart wrote: post #966

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s extremely heavy and unfounded speculation on your part. How do you know who flies, or what their morals are, or who they know?? You’re now attempting to move the goal posts to a different playing field entirely. Your beef was over radiation, which has extremely low levels of risk compared to air pollution, not the morals of flying. The questions about the environmental impacts of flying is certainly getting en…

I don't care about the morality of flying and I'm not suggesting they should, either. That's the whole point. Of course they use stronger language wrt activities they look down upon than for activities they don't. And maybe that's as it should be! Again, I am asking people to notice when this happens. The CDC hasn’t been “politicized,” in other words; their project is intrinsically political.

It's not a proof but I really enjoyed Zizek's thoughts on how fight against smoking is an ideology :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r238kp3ar_A

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#974

Post by dionidium »

dahart wrote: post #972
dionidium wrote: post #969

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't care about the morality of flying and I'm not suggesting they should, either. That's the whole point. Of course they use stronger language wrt activities they look down upon than for activities they don't. And maybe that's as it should be! Again, I am asking people to notice when this happens. The CDC hasn’t been “politicized,” in other words; their project is intrinsically political.

> their project is intrinsically political I don’t think that case has been made here, you’re failing to demonstrate it. I disagree that intrinsic politics has anything whatsoever to do with the safety of smoking vs radiation exposure of air travel. There are times when other people politicize what the CDC says. Your comments here explicitly and repeatedly attempted to politicize the secondhand smoke recommendations.…

You're not the only one here who has suggested I might be trying to make some kind of clandestine point about COVID. I've been on this difference in how the CDC treats these two topics since long before COVID existed and COVID couldn't be further from my mind.

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#975

Post by orblivion »

P_I_Staker wrote: post #941
orblivion wrote: post #845

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a specific definition of poison you're working with? You say that there's obviously no amount of poison that's good for you, but by that model of poison why do you assume that alcohol is a poison? Doesn't that become the question at hand?

I meant it more as a figure of speech. Nobody is trying to shoehorn health into random poisons. BTW there are allowable amounts to many poisons. There aren't allowable amounts of things like lead and butane. The question is why we're trying so hard to make something healthy. The answer is obvious, because we like it. You don't see doctors trying to come up with justifications for why we should drink arsenic or cyanid…

> I meant it more as a figure of speech.

I sort of figured, but then it wouldn't be much of an argument to claim that it can't be beneficial.

But fair enough, I misunderstood your argument. Your argument is actually that any claims of a fun "poison" being beneficial are highly suspect.

To that end - that would make sense for novel poisons or poisons that are rarely consumed. But this is one that's been consumed by many successful cultures for thousands of years. Animals get drunk on fermented fruit. That makes it seem more plausible to me that there could be something beneficial to it. Perhaps it was only beneficial in the days of unclean drinking water (unless that one is also not actually true! It's hard to believe anything anymore.).

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#976

Post by dahart »

dionidium wrote: post #974
dahart wrote: post #972

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> their project is intrinsically political I don’t think that case has been made here, you’re failing to demonstrate it. I disagree that intrinsic politics has anything whatsoever to do with the safety of smoking vs radiation exposure of air travel. There are times when other people politicize what the CDC says. Your comments here explicitly and repeatedly attempted to politicize the secondhand smoke recommendations.…

You're not the only one here who has suggested I might be trying to make some kind of clandestine point about COVID. I've been on this difference in how the CDC treats these two topics since long before COVID existed and COVID couldn't be further from my mind.

Then I’m sorry. Truly. I was speculating wildly and incorrectly. My apologies.

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#977

Post by droopyEyelids »

kevinmchugh wrote: post #142
steelstraw wrote: post #57

Everything is a balance though, isn't it? If a little alcohol reduces one's stress and increases socialization, then they may be better off with the alcohol on net.

It's not obvious that alcohol reduces stress.

awareness of stress?

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#978

Post by Mathnerd314 »

scoofy wrote: post #807
Mathnerd314 wrote: post #801

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the paper's title says, it's a randomized controlled trial, not a meta-analysis. A meta-analysis would likely exclude the RCT due to poor experimental design.

You are correct, but a meta-analysis would still suggest that there is no evidence that parachutes protect people jumping out of airplanes, because we don’t have evidence because we can’t have evidence.

Actually meta-analyses are not limited to RCTs - in my experience they can be quite subjective.

So for example, a meta-analysis might say that there's a fair amount of evidence that people not wearing parachutes die after falling from airplanes (e.g. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/08/26/story-an-afg...), and plenty of evidence that people can land successfully with a parachute (skydiving videos, too many to count). The conclusion would be a strong correlation between parachute use and not dying. The only thing there isn't is an RCT, to prove that the correlation is causal. The purpose of the parachute RCT paper seems to be to prove that the design of an RCT is just as fallible as any other reasoning that attempts to prove causality, so in fact RCTs are not the "gold standard" and other forms of reasoning may be just as valid. (e.g. basic physics in the case of the parachute)

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#979

Post by scoofy »

Mathnerd314 wrote: post #978
scoofy wrote: post #807

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are correct, but a meta-analysis would still suggest that there is no evidence that parachutes protect people jumping out of airplanes, because we don’t have evidence because we can’t have evidence.

Actually meta-analyses are not limited to RCTs - in my experience they can be quite subjective. So for example, a meta-analysis might say that there's a fair amount of evidence that people not wearing parachutes die after falling from airplanes (e.g. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/08/26/story-an-afg... ), and plenty of evidence that people can land successfully with a parachute (skydiving videos, too many…

>basic physics

I totally agree, the point that organizations like the World Heart Federation are using. We are taking basic physics as a truism, but it's the result of experimentation, which creates a framework. The same is done for the way the body functions. That framework can be used to make sweeping statements about alcohol / ionizing radiation, etc.

I've been totally blown away recently listing to This Week in Virology, as the panel of experts regularly discuss their concerns about how many people are discussing the viral/vaccine mechanics as though the framework we have of disease is perfect. It's always fascinating to hear what absurdly qualified people have concerns about when discussing their area of expertise.

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#980

Post by josephcsible »

pvarangot wrote: post #967
josephcsible wrote: post #835

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, it depends on how much you smoke and how much you travel. I find it hard to believe that smoking could be less dangerous than flying even for people who work as airline pilots or flight attendants.

Smoking every day? Sure it's more dangerous. Vaping at a party once per month? I don't think so.

If you say vaping now, then maybe. But actually smoking once a month I still doubt.
Post reply on HN