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

Alcohol-related deaths spiked during the pandemic, a study shows

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 314 posts

Re: Alcohol-related deaths spiked during the pandemic, a study shows

#301

Post by CryptoPunk »

swatcoder wrote: post #245
psychlops wrote: post #130

I notice that "the pandemic" is quickly found as the root cause and no analysis at all is done to identify if the response to the pandemic is to be implicated as well. I'd wager that waking up one day and discovering that one's job is not essential might be stressful. Being forbidden from going to the beaches and parks might have contributed. The stress of learned helplessness from countless bureaucratic decisions la…

That’s an aritificially hostile take, isn’t it? Most people read “ the pandemic” as the global event that started around the beginning of 2020 and certainly that’s how this article and it’s title are using it. Even if you don’t read the article, it feels like a leap to assume that they’re suggesting that the virus itself somehow made people drink more irresponsibly or made people collectively more vulnerable to alcoh…

I was agreeing with your comment until:

>>the necessary closures

Are you suggesting that the state needed to force private establishments to close, and that - putting aside the human rights implications of this abridgement of private-property/free-association rights - we can definitively say the net effect of these closures was positive?

Re: Alcohol-related deaths spiked during the pandemic, a study shows

#302

Post by Grustaf »

bduerst wrote: post #217
ponow wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"For some reason" there are temptations to addiction all around us, and alcohol is only one. We can't treat being human as merely a medical condition. Human cultures have adapted using shame as a tool.

Human cultures nave also historically adapted slavery, misogyny, and other "tools". That doesn't mean that shame is an acceptable nor an effective form of addiction treatment.

Also doesn’t mean it isn’t.

Re: Alcohol-related deaths spiked during the pandemic, a study shows

#303

Post by hnlmorg »

brigandish wrote: post #294
hnlmorg wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a pointless argument because the only way to prove that lockdown resulted in more deaths is to spin up a parallel universe and see how many more people would have died if we didn’t go into lockdown. Since we cannot do that you are all comparing the COVID deaths despite lockdown (which is still an order of magnitude higher then any of the estimates provided for deaths resulting from the lockdown). So you’re not m…

Firstly: > So you’re not making a like for like comparison. I'm not making the comparison at all, I'm pointing out the errors of making an out-of-hand dismissal of lockdown deaths and the faulty logic of the dismissal. > It’s a pointless argument because the only way to prove that lockdown resulted in more deaths is to spin up a parallel universe and see how many more people would have died if we didn’t go into lockd…

> Two things here. The first is that it's not pointless to consider how deaths could be reduced even if we were reduced to wild guesses. Most of human history has only had access to trial and error, and the hope of some insight springing up, and our ancestors did a fine job. We've got it easy.

This thread isn't considering how deaths can be reduced though. It's purely about making wild guesses about total death tolls without factoring in any additional variables. It's not even a statistical analysis, it's just people throwing around cherry picked "guestimations"f based on their prior assumptions.

> However, we don't need a parallel universe, different countries did different things, and - as the Macmillan report shows - it's possible to see that there's a link between the effects of lockdown (e.g. missed cancer diagnoses) and higher levels of mortality resulting from that, even if the precision is unknowable (which is won't be, it just won't be perfect).

Health care systems vary wildly from country to country. COVID infection rates varied wildly. As do cancer treatments and diagnosis. You can get some approximate figures to make speculations but it's a long way off a proof.

> People aren't stupid,

I wish I could agree with you on that one but the last 5 years has really made me change my mind about the degree of common sense in a great many people :-/

> - were lockdowns more effective than not?

> - which kinds of lockdowns were beneficial?

> - what lessons can we learn?

We had a lot of data on that already quite early on and bare in mind this isn't even the first outbreak that has needed to be contained (it's not even the first coronavirus outbreak let alone the first infectious virus). A large part of the problem isn't just what technically works better but what is more socially acceptable for a particular culture. For example South Korea was a lot more effective at restricting the spread of COVID than America but America's culture is based on different principles than South Korea's.

This is why I say you cannot come up with a proof without spinning up a parallel universe. While you can gather information from observing other responses in other countries, it's not proof that the same would have held true in your own country too.

> You can't on the one hand use a there is no parallel universe argument for your own rebuttal and then hope to avoid it by claiming bigger problems without a lockdown. Be fair.

They're not conflicting arguments so it's absolutely fair to make both statements.

Re: Alcohol-related deaths spiked during the pandemic, a study shows

#304

Post by hnlmorg »

Izkata wrote: post #131
hnlmorg wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a pointless argument because the only way to prove that lockdown resulted in more deaths is to spin up a parallel universe and see how many more people would have died if we didn’t go into lockdown. Since we cannot do that you are all comparing the COVID deaths despite lockdown (which is still an order of magnitude higher then any of the estimates provided for deaths resulting from the lockdown). So you’re not m…

> because the only way to prove that lockdown resulted in more deaths is to spin up a parallel universe and see how many more people would have died if we didn’t go into lockdown. Orrr we could compare to the places that didn't have any measures in place since mid-2020. About half of US states, for example.

> Orrr we could compare to the places that didn't have any measures in place since mid-2020. About half of US states, for example.

States vary wildly in terms of economy and culture. While there's benefit in looking at each state and seeing what worked, that isn't proof that the same would have worked in all states (let alone all countries).

Re: Alcohol-related deaths spiked during the pandemic, a study shows

#305

Post by vibrio »

collegeburner wrote: post #288
vibrio wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While outdoor masking is silly, the your rage seems disproportionate if that is the source. I've been accused of 'virtue signaling' during the pandemic, but supporting family members whose immune systems were largely disable from chemotherapy makes putting a mask on seem like a small sacrifice. Your take on 'spare a few years of lifespan' is perhaps not untrue, but is an easy 'internet take' when there is anonymity.…

I'd find it harder to tell a young healthy person they had to lose years of life, their job, their house, than to tell a 70 year old or obese person we aren't doing that to spare them. And you're right, rage is the correct word. Me and lots of others are enraged that years of life were taken. The old people in America already got enough at everybody else's expense. I want my 2 years back and I won't stop being angry…

“Old people in America” were heavily impacted but. I can tell you don’t work in health care, as they aren’t the only people that suffered either directly or indirectly . My grandfather, who served in WWII until he was shot, never said he “wanted his time back”(inherently flawed logic). Years of his life and a chunk of his health was taken for something he hated doing but needed to be done. My other grandfather left Eastern Europe in the 1930s and I can remember friends of his that had numbers tattooed on their arms— my aunt was permanently childless for reason I didn’t learn until I was older. Since forever, senseless things happen to people. Some become victims.. Wearing masks and no dinner-and-a-movie sucks. Loss of jobs is real. In the absence if mask mandates and shut-downs, would the economy have flourished under the pandemic? I dont know. I am confident it wouldn’t have been a panacea for the young or old. We have it really good here, in the context of what is going on in Europe right now I think about this a lot. I hope you find happiness.

Re: Alcohol-related deaths spiked during the pandemic, a study shows

#306

Post by ZeroGravitas »

jliptzin wrote: post #258
psychlops wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. The thesis reads "but the full impact of the pandemic’s collateral damage is still being tallied". The point above was regarding the response to the pandemic being considered as equal or greater contributors to the rise in alcoholic deaths. The failure and successes of the response should be distinctly studied to determine a better course of action for the next pandemic.

Who ever said the response to the pandemic was supposed to be without painful consequences? If the response to cancer is chemotherapy, that can be way more painful and inconvenient than the cancer itself, at least in the short run...the hope is to solve the problem so it doesn't end up killing you.

Bringing this back to tech and software development, it seems to be a standard human failure that discussing "which of these option is least bad" is really hard to do.

People want to argue for a course of action which is all sunshine and rainbows and against one that is evil and wrong. Even something totally boring like what DB to use can flare up because no one likes "in the big picture they're all a bit crappy, this one has a small chance of being better but may turn out to be a hindrance but it's not that important let's just pick one".

Once you get to the level of human health, the economy and politics there's very little chance to discuss things objectively.

Re: Alcohol-related deaths spiked during the pandemic, a study shows

#307

Post by ramijames »

mrguyorama wrote: post #277
ramijames wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Small kids. Non-stop work. No help from parents or the government. In my country if you're a freelancer, you got zero pandemic-related stipends. Has ended in divorce. Traumatized kids. I'm an emotional wreck, but I try to hide it and soldier on. There's only so much people can take before they give up.

Child of (now many times) divorced parents. It's often the right choice. Just try not to bad mouth the other parent in front of them. That hurts worse than having two Christmases.

Ya, I know better than that.

Re: Alcohol-related deaths spiked during the pandemic, a study shows

#308

Post by fgonzag »

loceng wrote: post #171
kaishiro wrote: post #44

My older brother is an alcoholic. I suspect it's somewhat cliche to say, but when he's sober he's the nicest guy I know - almost nobody else I'd rather spend time with - and when he's drunk, he's chaos. The past few years he's been really struggling with sobriety - on and off like a roller coaster. The pandemic was an absolute nightmare for someone like him - in between jobs, trying to stay sober, trying to find the…

Has he looked into, researched Ayahuasca yet? Legal in many places now including Canada, and plenty of anecdotal evidence that it helps break addictions/dependancies.

I'm into drugs as much as the next guy. Ayahuasca, peyote, and similar things are just hallucigenics. It's all BS from people who don't know what it feels like and link it to spiritualism. Religion might be dead in the 21st century, but spiritualism is definitely taking its place.

Re: Alcohol-related deaths spiked during the pandemic, a study shows

#309

Post by nautilius »

undersuit wrote: post #300
DiggyJohnson wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re coming across like you’re trying to miss the point. The entire article is attributing increased reaction rates to the pandemic.

>You’re coming across like you’re trying to miss the point. My response needs to be read as a response to nautilius's attempt to interpret psychlops' root comment.

Yeah, that still doesn't change that impression, though.

Re: Alcohol-related deaths spiked during the pandemic, a study shows

#310

Post by brigandish »

hnlmorg wrote: post #303
brigandish wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firstly: > So you’re not making a like for like comparison. I'm not making the comparison at all, I'm pointing out the errors of making an out-of-hand dismissal of lockdown deaths and the faulty logic of the dismissal. > It’s a pointless argument because the only way to prove that lockdown resulted in more deaths is to spin up a parallel universe and see how many more people would have died if we didn’t go into lockd…

> Two things here. The first is that it's not pointless to consider how deaths could be reduced even if we were reduced to wild guesses. Most of human history has only had access to trial and error, and the hope of some insight springing up, and our ancestors did a fine job. We've got it easy. This thread isn't considering how deaths can be reduced though. It's purely about making wild guesses about total death tolls…

> > it's not pointless to consider how deaths could be reduced even if we were reduced to wild guesses.

> This thread isn't considering how deaths can be reduced though… it's just people throwing around cherry picked "guestimations"f based on their prior assumptions.

I have not made any wild guesses or guestimations about death tolls, nor made reference to such. You might try simply responding to my comments instead of trying to dismiss them by pointing to (alleged) mistakes made by others.

> > However, we don't need a parallel universe…

> Health care systems vary wildly from country to country. COVID infection rates varied wildly. As do cancer treatments and diagnosis. You can get some approximate figures to make speculations but it's a long way off a proof.

Do you have a specific reason to dismiss the Macmillan report's methodology or findings other than your own assertion that it's not possible to provide a report that isn't full of "speculations"?

> > People aren't stupid,

> I wish I could agree with you on that one but the last 5 years has really made me change my mind about the degree of common sense in a great many people :-/

Common sense is not the same as stupidity.

> > - were lockdowns more effective than not? > > - which kinds of lockdowns were beneficial? > > - what lessons can we learn?

> We had a lot of data on that already quite early on

I'd love to hear more on this.

> this isn't even the first outbreak that has needed to be contained (it's not even the first coronavirus outbreak let alone the first infectious virus).

Those behind the [Great Barrington Declaration] have pointed out repeatedly that the mitigation strategies used in the past were different and would be more effective than what are known as "lockdowns":

> Inconsistent with the standard pandemic preparedness plans that existed before the COVID-19 epidemic, lockdowns are, and have always been, a radical approach to infection control.

You continue:

> A large part of the problem isn't just what technically works better but what is more socially acceptable for a particular culture.

If we're looking for things in this thread that aren't relevant, this would be one, interesting though it might be. Moreover, since many of the lockdowns were backed by law and punitive sanctions then what is socially acceptable is moot.

> For example South Korea was a lot more effective at restricting the spread of COVID than America but America's culture is based on different principles than South Korea's.

This chart is why "a lot of data on that already quite early on" looks hasty:

https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor...

> This is why I say you cannot come up with a proof without spinning up a parallel universe.

You keep using the word proof but I'm not sure in what sense. Scientists keep making the mistake of thinking it's possible. From a report in [Nature] on school closures:

> Here we assess the causal effect of school closures in Japan on reducing the spread of COVID-19 in spring 2020. By matching each municipality with open schools to a municipality with closed schools that is the most similar in terms of potential confounders, we can estimate how many cases the municipality with open schools would have had if it had closed its schools. We do not find any evidence that school closures in Japan reduced the spread of COVID-19. Our null results suggest that policies on school closures should be reexamined given the potential negative consequences for children and parents.

But if we're using special pleading arguments then this isn't possible, and nor is it even comparable with the act of comparing between countries. If only the US were as homogeneous as the Yamato culture!

[Duke] university looked at school closures in North Carolina but instead comparing spread within schools to community transmission. How can two different environments with different populations be compared? Well, they take you through it in the methodology of their paper. I didn't see mention of interdimensional travel.

We even have scientists and doctors comparing lockdown between… countries![Nature2] Not one of them is called Dr Strange, unfortunately. No, they simply compared things using methods that are well known.

> While you can gather information from observing other responses in other countries, it's not proof that the same would have held true in your own country too.

This is a dismissal prior to a claim being made, which makes it look more like a habit than a reasoned response. An open mind is more important than both common sense and IQ in ascertaining truth.

> > You can't on the one hand use a there is no parallel universe argument for your own rebuttal and then hope to avoid it by claiming bigger problems without a lockdown. Be fair.

> They're not conflicting arguments so it's absolutely fair to make both statements.

They're absolutely conflicting and strike me as a wild guess without proof.

[Great Barrington Declaration] https://gbdeclaration.org/focused-protection/

[Nature] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01571-8

[Duke] https://today.duke.edu/2021/01/duke-study-when-schools-take-...

[Nature2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95699-9

Post reply on HN