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

151–160 of 173 posts

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

#151

Post by rawgabbit »

ZpJuUuNaQ5 wrote: post #122

>Chronic loneliness Is it generally understood as feeling (being in a particular state of mind) as being lonely or just lacking social interactions in general, regardless of how one feels about it? Those two things, to my understanding, aren't the same. For example, I never had friends, and generally, I despise people. I have no "social life," and I wouldn't even be able to clearly define what it is without googling.…

There is a lot of debate and misinformation on this subject. My understanding is this is primarily an aging or elderly issue. For the majority of people, as we age, we mentally decline which worsens health in all aspects. If you are one of the lucky ones who remain sharp until passing, this doesn't affect you as much. If you are more average, the advice is that a social network of some sort will help you as you age.

There was the famous incident involving Gene Hackman. His care taker was his wife. The wife collapsed/died due to Henta virus and he passed a week later oblivious to what had happened to her. If Gene Hackman and his wife had more proactive support network (the kids or friends FaceTime them everyday), maybe this tragedy could have been avoided.

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

#152

Post by Qem »

stackbutterflow wrote: post #114
JackFr wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a funny statistical artifact I read once (well, for some value of 'funny') that home was a terrible place to have a heart attack, because people are willing to 'just lie down and see how I feel' rather than in a restaurant or movie theater where an ambulance will be called.

Then what about work from home? Does it increase mortality?

I bet any change in mortality due to increased isolation is offset by decreased deaths due to traffic acidents.

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

#153

Post by stronglikedan »

fullstop wrote: post #18

Before getting tied up with bureaucratic nonsense my daughter was looking at starting a "borrow a grandma / grandpa" club at her university. The idea was to connect students with elderly people who are lonely, and they could have tea / coffee together. The elderly get to be social with a younger generation, and the younger generation gets to understand the struggles that a lot of elderly people face. I think that the…

There's plenty of programs that do just that in the US, so maybe the university just didn't want to deal with the liability if someone else already is (if it was a US university, of course).

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

#154

Post by Qem »

e_y_ wrote: post #96
Y_Y wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to be that healthy to call an ambulance! As long as not everyone in the sick-and-poor commune has a heart attack at the same time this should be a safe enough system.

Ambulances are expensive enough that people are hesitant to call them, sometimes even in life threatening situations. And if the person is unsure whether the situation is critical, they might try to "sleep it off" rather than driving or getting a ride, because ER is also kind of expensive and you could be stuck there all day.

In US. But there are places with proper socialized health systems, where one must not be afraid of bankruptcy by calling an ambulance.

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

#155

Post by criddell »

BobaFloutist wrote: post #112
al_borland wrote: post #25

Mindfullness as a treatment for loneliness is strange to me. This doesn't actually help with the problem of being alone, it could just make someone be more OK with it. As someone who spends a lot of time alone, one of my big fears is having a medical emergency, even just choking on food, and dying from something that would be easily avoided had another person been in the house. I've gone and looked up how to give mys…

I think probably the idea is that Mindfulness helps you make peace with yourself and trouble-shoot your personality, both of which could make it easier to make connections with other people.

Are people who lack connections with other people lonely by definition?

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

#156

Post by FuriouslyAdrift »

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…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comorbidity

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

#157

Post by tsoukase »

Another correlation that has to take into account decades long lifetime confounders that are the elephant in the room, especially somatic and latent mental diseases. For example lonely people are so because their relatives died early and they will soon too.

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

#158

Post by fn-mote »

ken47 wrote: post #101
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…

And don't forget that physical loneliness, that is, actually being alone, eliminates one major feedback source that something could be wrong with your health, or a source of immediate aid if e.g. you go into cardiac arrest. Maybe the researcher above touches on these things, but more generally, there should be a standardized probability and statistics exam for ALL aspiring scientific researchers, and a high score sho…

> The influence that a statistically flawed study can have over our collective futures is too dangerous.

An even bigger danger: with all of the flawed / p-hacked / over-hyped studies, the public (and the legislature) will start to believe that NO science is real.

It worries me how much argument there is over things I consider to be facts. And how much effort goes into undermining science when it is not in the corporate interest (eg cigarette manufacturers funding “inconclusive” studies).

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

#159

Post by observationist »

oncallthrow wrote: post #134
vharuck wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That said, it seems pretty clear that incentivizing healthy socialization can significantly improve quality of life, reducing perceived suffering and quite possibly improving outcomes through reinforcement of the various social needs we have.

We are fundamentally social primates; there are prior studies demonstrating the overt harms of isolation and ostracization in humans, primates, and other mammals. Our immune systems, metabolism, and cardiovascular health are all tied intimately to things like stress and hormones, with feedback effects that can amplify disorder, or suppress it, depending on the directionality of the inputs.

I see the "just so" element of explanation to this study, but I think that even if the underlying causal factors are more complex, it is so directionally correct that I have no problem with the conclusion of the study, even if it's not correctly justified scientifically.

Post reply on HN