3 ms·

I haven't read the study, but going by the reporting, they are conflating different statistics, those of the direct health impact of alcohol, and those of the '

I haven't read the study, but going by the reporting, they are conflating different statistics, those of the direct health impact of alcohol, and those of the 'behavioral' impact (which may then have health effects). No doubt there is an increased risk of death, due to alcohol, through drunk-driving (either as perp or victim), street violence and so on. But many of those problems stem from a small percentage of people, or the small percentage of occasions, when it is consumed in excess. I think what people want to know are the direct health risks of alcohol, in various amounts.

DanBC 8y ago
Those are health risks of alcohol. People need to know all cause mortality.
- jacknews 8y ago
  It is an interesting statistic for the whole of society, but most individuals want to know the direct health impact of alcohol separate from the all-cause impact. The headline is misleading - it should say 'there is no safe level of alcohol for the good of society' or something similar. And it is even wrong - if it was possible to limit how much anyone could consume in a day, many of the 'behavioral' risks would go away, and we'd be left with the health risks only.
  - DanBC 8y ago
    Well, sure, but this is true even of the more direct health risks. Alcohol increases risks of many different types of cancer. We want to reduce the rates of cancer across a population, so we ask people to drink less. But what's my particular risk of cancer from alcohol? We have no way of saying. And even if alcohol doubles my risk, if the risk was small to begin with does it matter that it's doubled?
QasimK 8y ago
The study does break it down (pages 7-8 of the PDF) into various categories including a lot of individual diseases, transport injuries, self-harm, violence, alcohol-use disorders, and even on the other side, the health benefits. The direct health risks, i.e. diseases, assuming you can insulate yourself from the risk of self-harm, unintentional injuries, and other people, can be read off the graph... Barely. However, this is by age and not by amount of drinking.

DanBC 8y ago

Those are health risks of alcohol. People need to know all cause mortality.

jacknews 8y ago
It is an interesting statistic for the whole of society, but most individuals want to know the direct health impact of alcohol separate from the all-cause impact. The headline is misleading - it should say 'there is no safe level of alcohol for the good of society' or something similar. And it is even wrong - if it was possible to limit how much anyone could consume in a day, many of the 'behavioral' risks would go away, and we'd be left with the health risks only.
- DanBC 8y ago
  Well, sure, but this is true even of the more direct health risks. Alcohol increases risks of many different types of cancer. We want to reduce the rates of cancer across a population, so we ask people to drink less. But what's my particular risk of cancer from alcohol? We have no way of saying. And even if alcohol doubles my risk, if the risk was small to begin with does it matter that it's doubled?

QasimK 8y ago

The study does break it down (pages 7-8 of the PDF) into various categories including a lot of individual diseases, transport injuries, self-harm, violence, alcohol-use disorders, and even on the other side, the health benefits. The direct health risks, i.e. diseases, assuming you can insulate yourself from the risk of self-harm, unintentional injuries, and other people, can be read off the graph... Barely. However, this is by age and not by amount of drinking.