7 ms·
A brilliant excerpt from the end of the bbc article[0]: Yet Prof David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor for the Public Understanding of Risk at the University o
by robbick 8y ago
A brilliant excerpt from the end of the bbc article[0]:
Yet Prof David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor for the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge, sounded a note of caution about the findings.
"Given the pleasure presumably associated with moderate drinking, claiming there is no 'safe' level does not seem an argument for abstention," he said.
"There is no safe level of driving, but the government does not recommend that people avoid driving.
"Come to think of it, there is no safe level of living, but nobody would recommend abstention."
[0]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45283401 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45283401
- lcfcjs2 8y agoGreat comment. This is very true. People who drive cars are more likely to die from injuries than people who stay at home.
- marak830 8y ago"Come to think of it, there is no safe level of living, but nobody would recommend abstention." I think I have found my new motto :-)
- base698 8y ago"Never take life too seriously, no one gets out alive."
- mattnewport 8y agoIt's a vaguely amusing line but it doesn't actually make any sense in context.
- gnulinux 8y agoIt's a spiritual generalization of the statement "There is no safe level of driving, but the government does not recommend that people avoid driving." and thus it seems relevant to the context (and does make sense), not as a rational argument, but as a figure of speech to emphasize author's opinion about the subject.
- mattnewport 8y agoI disagree. It's equivalent to suggesting in a discussion about optimal poker strategies that you shouldn't play poker. In the context of the conversation it's already given that you've decided to play and you want to figure out how to win. Whether discussing driving or drinking it's assumed that you want to live and do so in the way that most optimally achieves your goals. Not playing the game isn't part of the discussion.
- sorokod 8y agoIsnt There is no safe level of driving one of the main motivations for self driving cars?
- salawat 8y agoNo. Because it doesn't change the fact you're hurtling along faster than nature could ever have prepared you for. Even worse, you're putting your faith in getting to where you want safely into some bored programmer's hands.
- sorokod 8y agoI wasn't taking this promise at face value :-) Only mentioning it as it is being sold to the masses.
- gnulinux 8y agoNo because there is also no safe level of being driven by a self-driving car, yet.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- JoeAltmaier 8y agoFatuous remark by that professor. Drinking doesn't get you to work etc. Its entirely dispensable. I read (here) that 10% of liquor stores' customers are half the volume. So the lesson probably applies mostly to those 10% who think "one drink a day" is a reasonable thing. The other 90% are risking very little, especially if they do their drinking at home.
- nothrabannosir 8y ago> Drinking doesn't get you to work Speak for yourself.
- lmm 8y ago> Fatuous remark by that professor. Drinking doesn't get you to work etc. Its entirely dispensable. WTF? Work exists to support a fun life, not the other way around.
- JoeAltmaier 8y agoThe car remark is implying drinking is a useful productive thing like driving. Its not the same kind of thing at all.
- lmm 8y agoIf it brings people joy then that's the very essence of being useful and productive.
- lern_too_spel 8y agoThe idea is that people balance fun vs. risk. Whereas before, we used to think there was benefit in drinking in moderation, we now know that any amount of drinking is detrimental. That changes the optimal portfolio of fun activities for drinkers.
- fulafel 8y agoDriving and most activities it supports are so environmentally unsustainable that most driving is arguably of negative value.
- Nav_Panel 8y agoThis gave me an interesting idea for a thought experiment (do NOT read this as a recommendation): imagine the (US) government, instead of discouraging drinking, required a mandatory n (4?) drinks/week to healthy adults, and sent out free drink vouchers. What effects would this policy have on social cohesion (or happiness) among adults? What would the downsides be? EDIT: yes, obvious downsides are obvious. What I find interesting is the idea of the government providing a small mandate that then creates emergent social change, by virtue of everyone having to do it. For example, the OP is about "no safe level of alcohol consumption" and recommends a policy change to decrease the recommendation. But what ends does this achieve? What sorts of government policies might encourage people to solve the problems that are making them unhappy? That's the kind of thing I'm trying to figure out.
- JoeAltmaier 8y agoSome of us would feel nauseous and ill the rest of our lives
- toomuchtodo 8y agoSpend time with your friends drinking a soda while they use your vouchers. Everyone wins.
- JoeAltmaier 8y agoHave you ever actually done that? Its pretty grim. They get more silly and stupid and you don't, and you're looking at the clock and wishing you were someplace else.
- toomuchtodo 8y agoNot so much anymore because I've got kids now, but previously yes, as a designated driver. Grim? I suppose it's all perspective. Some people go to a therapist, some people go to the pub together.
- forgottenpass 8y ago
- QasimK 8y agoDrinking and (often, necessary) driving are not comparable, so the commenter could have chosen a better comparison. Edit: Based on comments in this thread, there are a lot of different perspectives on how comparable these two activities are. I still think there are many significantly "better" examples that could have been given.
- IshKebab 8y agoThey are comparable. They're both activities that come with some risk of death, and both activities that we would like to be able to do.
- nightski 8y agoMany drive because it's required to get to their job and survive economically. I'm not sure the same case could be made for alcohol.
- throwaway917100 8y agoMany drink because just surviving is not enough to live a fulfilling life.
- charlesdm 8y agoYou're probably not wrong on that
- agentdax5 8y agoWhat does that have to do with the fact that driving is an activity that carries the risk of death? Necessity is not part of the discussion.
- QasimK 8y agoWhy do you think it isn’t? People do necessary things because they have to. People do desirable things because they want to. The risk of death can make a difference on whether you choose to do the desirable things, but you don’t have a choice about the necessary things.
- lainga 8y ago"[It] doesn't mean, if you drink on birthdays and Christmas, you're going to die." Although that statement is true, until we find the Philosopher's Stone. If you do anything, you're going to die... eventually.
- eurticket 8y agoBarring some philosophy - life isn't optional, what you consume is.
- pasbesoin 8y agoDriving to the doctor or hospital, when you need treatment, might on balance be "safe". (You're better off doing so, than not, epidemiologically.) Perhaps all alcohol consumption is a burden on the body. But having a social life is a positive -- we keep seeing more reporting on the benefits of the latter. So, where's the balance? At the same time, I've seen a lot of pretty obviously unbalanced engagement with alcohol. And, it's remained largely segregated from many other drugs -- yes, calling it a drug -- in public perception and policy. Maybe that will change, for the better.