Zero tolerance: no safe level of alcohol, study says

[AndrewH]

There’s no completely safe level of anything. It’s a stupid and pointless way to think of risk and decisions.

+1. The safe level of skiing, driving, and eating steak is probably zero as well. But I enjoy those things, which counts for something.

[Matt_G]

“In 2016, eight of the leading 10 countries with lowest death rates attributable to alcohol use among 15- to 49-year-olds were in the Middle East: Kuwait, Iran, Palestine, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, and Syria. The other two were Maldives and Singapore.”

This.

The life expectancies in some of these countries is 10+ years lower than in the high alcohol use countries. A bit of missing the forest for the trees happening with this study.

[Scott_G_r_u_n_e_r]

Shrug

[dsimmons]

I am certain that you could postulate just about any conclusion about the effect of alcohol consumption and find a study to support it.

[Yao_C]

One of our researchers (knowing I like wine) grabbed me and started telling me about how the original study is perhaps a tad sensationalist and how the Medium post really puts that into perspective

The salient bit is:

“Next look at 2 drinks a day… in this case, compared to non-drinkers an extra 63 (977–914) in 100,000 people experience a health problem each year. That means, to experience one extra problem, 1,600 people need to drink 20g alcohol a day for a year, in which case we would expect 16 instead of 15 problems between them… [that’s] equivalent to around 32 bottles of gin per person. So a total of 50,000 bottles of gin among these 1,600 people is associated with one extra health problem.”

So without even questioning the methodology behind the data, the data don’t suggest anything to worry about

[Jonathan_Loesberg]

One of our researchers (knowing I like wine) grabbed me and started telling me about how the original study is perhaps a tad sensationalist and how the Medium post really puts that into perspective

The salient bit is:

“Next look at 2 drinks a day… in this case, compared to non-drinkers an extra 63 (977–914) in 100,000 people experience a health problem each year. That means, to experience one extra problem, 1,600 people need to drink 20g alcohol a day for a year, in which case we would expect 16 instead of 15 problems between them… [that’s] equivalent to around 32 bottles of gin per person. So a total of 50,000 bottles of gin among these 1,600 people is associated with one extra health problem.”

So without even questioning the methodology behind the data, the data don’t suggest anything to worry about

This is beyond absurd. The figures do show that your chances of experiencing health problems as a result of having 2 drinks a day is small, though not negligible, roughly 1 in 16 or 6.25%. It doesn’t remotely mean that for any individual to experience that increased rate, he or she has to drink the amount of alcohol that all 16 do. He or she still has only to drink the two drinks a day.

[PaulMills]

After reading the study I considered quitting drinking and selling my collection. Then I considered that if I sold it, whomever bought it would surely drink it and then I would feel guilty that I had increased their chance of dying early. So I shall keep my collection and since I do not want it to go to waste, I will drink it moderately.

[JLee]

No one really disputes that alcohol has a negative effect on one’s physical well-being, right? Understanding of course that one’s an adult and can make one’s own decisions, there’s more to life than just keeping oneself alive and in good health, and moderation can make a difference in the effects, etc.

After reading the study I considered quitting drinking and selling my collection. Then I considered that if I sold it, whomever bought it would surely drink it and then I would feel guilty that I had increased their chance of dying early. So I shall keep my collection and since I do not want it to go to waste, I will drink it moderately.

Here’s a good response. Cheers to you Paul.

[David_Bu3ker]

One of our researchers (knowing I like wine) grabbed me and started telling me about how the original study is perhaps a tad sensationalist and how the Medium post really puts that into perspective

The salient bit is:

“Next look at 2 drinks a day… in this case, compared to non-drinkers an extra 63 (977–914) in 100,000 people experience a health problem each year. That means, to experience one extra problem, 1,600 people need to drink 20g alcohol a day for a year, in which case we would expect 16 instead of 15 problems between them… [that’s] equivalent to around 32 bottles of gin per person. So a total of 50,000 bottles of gin among these 1,600 people is associated with one extra health problem.”

So without even questioning the methodology behind the data, the data don’t suggest anything to worry about

This is beyond absurd. The figures do show that your chances of experiencing health problems as a result of having 2 drinks a day is small, though not negligible, roughly 1 in 16 or 6.25%. It doesn’t remotely mean that for any individual to experience that increased rate, he or she has to drink the amount of alcohol that all 16 do. He or she still has only to drink the two drinks a day.

Health problems is a generous way to read it. Two of the top three issues for 15-49 year olds were accident and self harm. People are not developing diseases at a higher rate from 2 drinks unless they have some other, underlying issue.

[DanielP]

One of our researchers (knowing I like wine) grabbed me and started telling me about how the original study is perhaps a tad sensationalist and how the Medium post really puts that into perspective

The salient bit is:

“Next look at 2 drinks a day… in this case, compared to non-drinkers an extra 63 (977–914) in 100,000 people experience a health problem each year. That means, to experience one extra problem, 1,600 people need to drink 20g alcohol a day for a year, in which case we would expect 16 instead of 15 problems between them… [that’s] equivalent to around 32 bottles of gin per person. So a total of 50,000 bottles of gin among these 1,600 people is associated with one extra health problem.”

So without even questioning the methodology behind the data, the data don’t suggest anything to worry about

This is beyond absurd. The figures do show that your chances of experiencing health problems as a result of having 2 drinks a day is small, though not negligible, roughly 1 in 16 or 6.25%. It doesn’t remotely mean that for any individual to experience that increased rate, he or she has to drink the amount of alcohol that all 16 do. He or she still has only to drink the two drinks a day.

People are not developing diseases at a higher rate from 2 drinks unless they have some other, underlying issue.

What is your basis for such a statement?

[David_Bu3ker]

Annoyance at a brutally stupid study.

[Chuck_Anderson]

The figures do show that your chances of experiencing health problems as a result of having 2 drinks a day is small, though not negligible, roughly 1 in 16 or 6.25%.

What figures are you looking at which indicate a roughly 6% chance of health problems from two drinks a day?

The numbers I see:

977 in 100,000 = health issues for 2-a-day drinkers = 0.977%, a tad less than 1/100
914 in 100,000 = health issues for non-drinkers = 0.914% a tad less than above
63 in 100,000 = incremental health issues for 2-a-day vs non-drinkers = 0.063% = about 1 in 1600 (not 1 in 16)

Did your decimal get shifted a couple places, or are you looking at something different?

edit: to the extent that you’re objecting to the imagery of the cumulative bottles of 1600 gin drinkers, I’d agree that is not informative, maybe outright misleading.

[David_Bu3ker]

Not to mention, it’s gin.

[Markus_S]

Gee, nothing like an anti-alcohol study to bring out the naysayers and denouncers. Perhaps we need to look in the mirror and admit an unsavory fact of this passion of ours. There is nothing wrong with that.

[dcornutt]

“Everything in moderation except whiskey, and sometimes too much whiskey is just enough.”


― Mark Twain (Samuel L Clemens)

Sometimes you just gotta live your life.

[Jim_Stewart]

Well . . . I have zero tolerance for the conclusions made from this “study” . . . so there !!!

[Paul_H_Galli]

Oh my gosh, my risk of death due to alcohol is higher than a Palestinian.

Not if you were in their “territory”…

TTT

[DanielP]

Annoyance at a brutally stupid study.

You may disagree with the merits of the study, but i don’t see a factual basis for suggesting that health problems attributable to alcohol arise only in the context of pre-existing conditions

[Yao_C]

Or a propensity to drive while drunk / commit suicide. I’d like to see the adjusted numbers assuming neither thing happens

[Jonathan_Loesberg]

The figures do show that your chances of experiencing health problems as a result of having 2 drinks a day is small, though not negligible, roughly 1 in 16 or 6.25%.

What figures are you looking at which indicate a roughly 6% chance of health problems from two drinks a day?

The numbers I see:

977 in 100,000 = health issues for 2-a-day drinkers = 0.977%, a tad less than 1/100
914 in 100,000 = health issues for non-drinkers = 0.914% a tad less than above
63 in 100,000 = incremental health issues for 2-a-day vs non-drinkers = 0.063% = about 1 in 1600 (not 1 in 16)

Did your decimal get shifted a couple places, or are you looking at something different?

edit: to the extent that you’re objecting to the imagery of the cumulative bottles of 1600 gin drinkers, I’d agree that is not informative, maybe outright misleading.

Indeed, my numbers were off by a factor of 10 I believe, making one’s increased risk really negligible, .625%. And indeed, I was objecting to the cumulative remark.