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

Meta-analysis of 2.2M people: Loneliness increases mortality risk by 32%

lightcapai.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 173 posts

Re: Meta-analysis of 2.2M people: Loneliness increases mortality risk by 32%

#131

Post by ivape »

paraknight wrote: post #16

I haven't dug into all the sources, but I think there's a potential confounder here, or maybe even reverse causality. The author seems to assume causation when the studies only indicate correlation. E.g. the first link says "chronic loneliness increases mortality risk" but the actual source says "actual and perceived social isolation are both associated with increased risk for early mortality". So for example, it's p…

If you think things through like that then you can only ever attribute physical, material, biological factors as the only things involved in mapping the causation. In other words, every time we attempt to draw the line to mortality, it gets hacked down as we keep reducing the argument.

We cannot explore the possibilities of truth if we do that, but I can appreciate the due diligence. It’s a tricky subject, but life experience informs many of us that there is something more going on than “I materially feel like shit”.

There is a taboo element to loneliness that isn’t often discussed, and that is “I feel hurt that I can be left alone, or that anyone can be left alone or isolated”. So, while the source of the isolation could be material, the feeling that manifests from it is an actual hurt that one feels from the actual thing (isolation). For example, we may be killing our elders when we isolate them in care facilities.

I can’t say if we have the sense as a society to accept data that suggests this pain can be linked to mortality. Isolation in itself isn’t the killer, it’s the pain of “well how could any society leave anyone alone”, and such a phenomenon can be witnessed in the macro outside of yourself (how can we leave people on the street? Etc).

Loneliness and isolation is often in sequence, after abandonment, or negligence, or unforgivingness (if the person “deserved” the isolating). A phantom, immeasurable pain. And even more painful, to deny it afterwards.

Re: Meta-analysis of 2.2M people: Loneliness increases mortality risk by 32%

#132

Post by AnimalMuppet »

IMSAI8080 wrote: post #103
vasco wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My dismissive but practical take is "well yeah there's nobody in the room to call an ambulance when you have the heart attack you'll most likely have", which mindfulness classes and support groups don't help with. There's practical benefits to having people around.

Or related: there's no one to nag you about going to get that funny ache checked out. Men particularly are notoriously reluctant to go to a doctor for various reasons but a worried partner might persuade them.

When this happens to us, my wife says, "This is another reason why married men live longer."

She's not wrong...

Re: Meta-analysis of 2.2M people: Loneliness increases mortality risk by 32%

#133

Post by AnimalMuppet »

nh23423fefe wrote: post #41
vasco wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My dismissive but practical take is "well yeah there's nobody in the room to call an ambulance when you have the heart attack you'll most likely have", which mindfulness classes and support groups don't help with. There's practical benefits to having people around.

Dying of natural causes is ok though.

Preventably dying of natural causes is kind of a waste, though.

Re: Meta-analysis of 2.2M people: Loneliness increases mortality risk by 32%

#134

Post by oncallthrow »

vharuck wrote: post #28
paraknight wrote: post #16

I haven't dug into all the sources, but I think there's a potential confounder here, or maybe even reverse causality. The author seems to assume causation when the studies only indicate correlation. E.g. the first link says "chronic loneliness increases mortality risk" but the actual source says "actual and perceived social isolation are both associated with increased risk for early mortality". So for example, it's p…

Poor health increasing social isolation isn't even a hard casual path to argue. Common health problems can physically restrict how often and how long one leaves the house: people on oxygen can only travel as far as their supply and weakened lungs can take them, or people with bowel disorders might be reluctant to be do anything without easy and discrete bathroom use, people with visible symptoms might be embarrassed…

Yes, this seems blindingly obvious to me. Maybe because I have chronic health problems myself. Perhaps those blessed with good health are blissfully ignorant.

When you are chronically ill, socializing falls pretty rapidly down your list of priorities.

Re: Meta-analysis of 2.2M people: Loneliness increases mortality risk by 32%

#135

Post by red_rech »

al_borland wrote: post #97
SirHumphrey wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But then choking is not the only health emergency when having people around is a plus. Even active people sometimes suffer from heart attacks and having someone being there doing chest compressions or at least calling for help leads to quite difficult health outcomes versus being found hours later. Same goes for strokes…

Exactly. Many of the statistically more dangerous things are either chronic issues (obesity) or inherently in public (driving). Choking, a heart attack, etc are acute issues happening in private, which is where the fear lies. Some of those acute issues could be made more likely by the chronic issue, but not always. And if the chronic issues are known, a person can proactively get tests to hopefully avoid an acute iss…

I had a mildly embarrassing shower fall that ended in a deep wound. I tried to sleep it off not realizing how bad it was and ended up having to get surgery. Because of the location of the injury, there was a big risk of infection.

I was alone, but luckily I was only 19 and healthy at the time. But I came away with a new understanding of the dangers of these things and whys there’s so much advertising to older people it. I can imagine a frail individual not surviving something like that if alone.

Re: Meta-analysis of 2.2M people: Loneliness increases mortality risk by 32%

#136

Post by gosub100 »

lurking_swe wrote: post #119
gosub100 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever given a Christmas gift to someone? Or do you abstain because it requires a belief in flying reindeer?

I’m not the person you replied to. I was raised catholic, but these days I don’t believe in god and think the church is a waste of time. But i DO still celebrate christmas. Not for ME, but as an excuse to connect with family and friends. In other words, i don’t go to church and subject myself to nodding to 60 minutes of nonsense (to me). Instead I join for christmas lunch / dinner. The socializing part. The good part…

> What does belief in a religion have to do with participating in social events that happen to be rooted in religion?

I'm not making that claim. I'm addressing the reverse: someone who refuses to go to church ("participating in social events ") because he doesn't believe the dogma. And so I brought up that many people have no such reservations about participating in Christmas traditions and activities.

Re: Meta-analysis of 2.2M people: Loneliness increases mortality risk by 32%

#137

Post by emptybits »

Shameless plug for a good organization that helps fight social isolation and loneliness among elderly: Cycling Without Age.

https://cyclingwithoutage.org/

We're an international movement whereby volunteer cyclists pedal passengers around on what is essentially a small couch on wheels. The elderly get out into their neighbourhood while engaging with volunteers in conversation, jokes, and memories. The benefits of even brief but regular social connection are lasting, as we hear from medical professionals and care home workers and the residents themselves and their families.

There's a great TED Talk on it which inspired us to start a local chapter almost eight years ago. We are in high demand and growing so if you're looking for a healthy way to serve others, consider getting in touch with your local chapter (or starting it!)

Re: Meta-analysis of 2.2M people: Loneliness increases mortality risk by 32%

#138

Post by gaoshan »

damnesian wrote: post #29

I've seen this happen in person, to my grandmother. She hitched her identity to the man of the house, even signing checks "Mrs. grandad's name." She was the accountant of their farm along with housewife and cook and chicken tender. He was most of the muscle until he had to relinquish the work to their youngest son, who had moved out and into his own house. She was in relatively good health when grandad died at 76. Sh…

The person she spent her life with died. She could have just been sad and lonely over that, not some lack of "identity".

I've been married for over 30 years and we both have our own independent identities and successes (as well as shared ones). We are still very close and loving. Neither needs the other to live but after so long our emotional involvement with each other is as deep and foundational as the roots of a great tree. Losing her (or her me) would be utterly devastating and how we identify ourselves has nothing to do with it.

Re: Meta-analysis of 2.2M people: Loneliness increases mortality risk by 32%

#140

Post by dfxm12 »

paraknight wrote: post #16

I haven't dug into all the sources, but I think there's a potential confounder here, or maybe even reverse causality. The author seems to assume causation when the studies only indicate correlation. E.g. the first link says "chronic loneliness increases mortality risk" but the actual source says "actual and perceived social isolation are both associated with increased risk for early mortality". So for example, it's p…

Social isolation is also not the same thing as loneliness. The paper recognizes this and gives different outcomes for three distinct categories (social isolation, loneliness and living alone). The blog post mistakenly cites the outcome for living alone as the outcome for loneliness.
Post reply on HN