3 ms·

Anecdotally I know a lot of really old people who still drink. Maybe I'd know more if they didn't drink. I know one guy who is ~90, survived cancer 3 times and

Anecdotally I know a lot of really old people who still drink. Maybe I'd know more if they didn't drink. I know one guy who is ~90, survived cancer 3 times and attributes his survival to daily doses of Japanese Shochu. You might be able to argue that alcohol was the cause of the cancer but I guess we'll never know. Disclaimer: Currently not drinking even a drop. Edit: Maybe I'd know more if they didn't drink....is a reference to the fact I read the article and I understand that statistically, there might be more old people alive because it seems like it's "statistically safer" not to drink so please, try to stay calm and stop telling me I can't understand anything about statistics...I know it's exciting to do this lately though.

SeanLuke 4y ago
> Anecdotally I know a lot of really old people who still drink. I know someone who smokes a pack of cigarettes a day who is almost 100 years old. Smoking is good or you!
- bamboozled 4y ago
  Not what I said...however, I personally do know a lot more people who have actually died from health issues directly related to smoking: heat attacks, emphysema, lung cancer.
konschubert 4y ago
This comment adds nothing to the discussion.
- splatzone 4y ago
  Disagree, today I learned what Shōchū is
- hungryforcodes 4y ago
  Nothing matters we will all die eventually.
- billythemaniam 4y ago
  Neither does yours, neither does mine.
- VLM 4y ago
  The world is full of people who strongly and honestly believe anecdotes are more important than statistics and statistics are meaninglessly astrological in nature. Its a very popular set of beliefs, majority in some areas.
  - yokem55 4y ago
    The problem is that how well anyone's particular life circumstances fit into a statistical model (or not) can be a very difficult thing to discern. There is a combinatorial explosion of factors that everyone is subject to, and most epidemiological statistics can address and account for a handful of them at a time. So what ends up happening is folks look at the statistics, shrug, and continue their own n=1. The best they can do is be honest with themselves about "how is that working out for you?"
    - VLM 4y ago
      "hows that working out for you" has been completely replaced in society due to social media with "how many updoots will I get?"
  - rs999gti 4y ago
    > believe anecdotes are more important than statistics and statistics Yes look at the current world, media, and western societies
  - bradleyjg 4y ago
    The next level up are people that have no actual understanding of statistics, empirical reasoning, and the weaknesses therein but have learned that if you throw certain science-y words together your arguments will tend land better.
  - bamboozled 4y ago
    The world is full of people like you who thinks that making this comment ensures you're intellectually superior to others. I, of course, know what statistics is and how to interpret it , I'm aware drinking isn't especially good for ones health and other aspect of ones life, which is why I'm currently...not drinking. I'm also aware how silly it is to worry about it and make absolutely claims like "No level..blah". No level of C02 from fossil fuels is good for us anymore; However, I'm certain you'll get in your car and drive or on a plane and fly soon enough. The point I'm trying to make is that what matters one minute often seems inconsequential the next, regardless of statistics. For example, the WHO provides quite shocking statistics on the dangerous of food fires and other heating / cooking methods which are used in my neighborhood: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/household-air-pollution-and-health https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/household-a..., it freaks me out but I can't do much about it or my neighbors use of a wood stove. Should I move? So while I think it's been obvious for sometime, alcohol is bad for ones health, smoke is also bad for ones health, is there anything really new or wise in this bulletin from the WHO, I don't think so really. Have a read of this on the WHO's website: FACT: Alcohol-based sanitizers are safe for everyone to use Alcohols in the sanitizers have not been shown to create any relevant health issues. Little alcohol is absorbed into the skin, and most products contain an emollient to reduce skin dryness. Allergic contact dermatitis and bleaching of hand hair due to alcohol are very rare adverse effects. Accidental swallowing and intoxication have been described in rare cases. So in this case, my body will adsorb alcohol, but in this case it's ok because it's on another page separate from the one we're discussing?
rco8786 4y ago
For every of those is several people who died at 60 from liver disease
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- thebigspacefuck 4y ago
  It’s happening to a lot of younger adults in their 30s now too.
  - bamboozled 4y ago
    You don't actually know if alcohol is the cause, it might be all the other shit that we've put into the environment to, such as PFOAs, PFOS, Microplastics, air polltion and more and more...
    - thebigspacefuck 4y ago
      For the people I knew, there is no doubt in my mind. Only mentioning because until people I knew died, I thought liver disease only struck as you approached your 50s/60s.
    - rco8786 4y ago
      > You don't actually know if alcohol is the cause On an individual basis, no. But on a macro, yes. We can pretty directly attribute a large % of liver-related deaths directly to alcohol.
andsoitis 4y ago
don’t let anecdata bamboozle you
- bamboozled 4y ago
  Don't let andsoitis bamboozle you...
kevinmchugh 4y ago
The thing they have in common is that they still have social connections, including with you. People who are alone for stretches of time have a lot more risk from falls, etc
- bamboozled 4y ago
  Sometimes I drink with that person, and they might socially drink with others, so it might even be fair to say in this case, it's a positive then? I just have a real problem with talking in absolutes.
  - kevinmchugh 4y ago
    It's possible to accept the risk of alcohol as being worth it. I do when I choose to drink. But it's always going to be worse than not drinking, ceteris paribus. If you're able to replace the drinking sessions with tea, or a game, that's probably better for health. Maybe that's not possible, maybe there's something unique about the effect of alcohol, even in small quantities.

SeanLuke 4y ago

> Anecdotally I know a lot of really old people who still drink. I know someone who smokes a pack of cigarettes a day who is almost 100 years old. Smoking is good or you!

bamboozled 4y ago
Not what I said...however, I personally do know a lot more people who have actually died from health issues directly related to smoking: heat attacks, emphysema, lung cancer.

konschubert 4y ago

This comment adds nothing to the discussion.

splatzone 4y ago
Disagree, today I learned what Shōchū is
hungryforcodes 4y ago
Nothing matters we will all die eventually.
billythemaniam 4y ago
Neither does yours, neither does mine.
VLM 4y ago
The world is full of people who strongly and honestly believe anecdotes are more important than statistics and statistics are meaninglessly astrological in nature. Its a very popular set of beliefs, majority in some areas.
- yokem55 4y ago
  The problem is that how well anyone's particular life circumstances fit into a statistical model (or not) can be a very difficult thing to discern. There is a combinatorial explosion of factors that everyone is subject to, and most epidemiological statistics can address and account for a handful of them at a time. So what ends up happening is folks look at the statistics, shrug, and continue their own n=1. The best they can do is be honest with themselves about "how is that working out for you?"
  - VLM 4y ago
    "hows that working out for you" has been completely replaced in society due to social media with "how many updoots will I get?"
- rs999gti 4y ago
  > believe anecdotes are more important than statistics and statistics Yes look at the current world, media, and western societies
- bradleyjg 4y ago
  The next level up are people that have no actual understanding of statistics, empirical reasoning, and the weaknesses therein but have learned that if you throw certain science-y words together your arguments will tend land better.
- bamboozled 4y ago
  The world is full of people like you who thinks that making this comment ensures you're intellectually superior to others. I, of course, know what statistics is and how to interpret it , I'm aware drinking isn't especially good for ones health and other aspect of ones life, which is why I'm currently...not drinking. I'm also aware how silly it is to worry about it and make absolutely claims like "No level..blah". No level of C02 from fossil fuels is good for us anymore; However, I'm certain you'll get in your car and drive or on a plane and fly soon enough. The point I'm trying to make is that what matters one minute often seems inconsequential the next, regardless of statistics. For example, the WHO provides quite shocking statistics on the dangerous of food fires and other heating / cooking methods which are used in my neighborhood: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/household-air-pollution-and-health https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/household-a..., it freaks me out but I can't do much about it or my neighbors use of a wood stove. Should I move? So while I think it's been obvious for sometime, alcohol is bad for ones health, smoke is also bad for ones health, is there anything really new or wise in this bulletin from the WHO, I don't think so really. Have a read of this on the WHO's website: FACT: Alcohol-based sanitizers are safe for everyone to use Alcohols in the sanitizers have not been shown to create any relevant health issues. Little alcohol is absorbed into the skin, and most products contain an emollient to reduce skin dryness. Allergic contact dermatitis and bleaching of hand hair due to alcohol are very rare adverse effects. Accidental swallowing and intoxication have been described in rare cases. So in this case, my body will adsorb alcohol, but in this case it's ok because it's on another page separate from the one we're discussing?

rco8786 4y ago

For every of those is several people who died at 60 from liver disease

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
thebigspacefuck 4y ago
It’s happening to a lot of younger adults in their 30s now too.
- bamboozled 4y ago
  You don't actually know if alcohol is the cause, it might be all the other shit that we've put into the environment to, such as PFOAs, PFOS, Microplastics, air polltion and more and more...
  - thebigspacefuck 4y ago
    For the people I knew, there is no doubt in my mind. Only mentioning because until people I knew died, I thought liver disease only struck as you approached your 50s/60s.
  - rco8786 4y ago
    > You don't actually know if alcohol is the cause On an individual basis, no. But on a macro, yes. We can pretty directly attribute a large % of liver-related deaths directly to alcohol.

andsoitis 4y ago

don’t let anecdata bamboozle you

bamboozled 4y ago
Don't let andsoitis bamboozle you...

kevinmchugh 4y ago

The thing they have in common is that they still have social connections, including with you. People who are alone for stretches of time have a lot more risk from falls, etc

bamboozled 4y ago
Sometimes I drink with that person, and they might socially drink with others, so it might even be fair to say in this case, it's a positive then? I just have a real problem with talking in absolutes.
- kevinmchugh 4y ago
  It's possible to accept the risk of alcohol as being worth it. I do when I choose to drink. But it's always going to be worse than not drinking, ceteris paribus. If you're able to replace the drinking sessions with tea, or a game, that's probably better for health. Maybe that's not possible, maybe there's something unique about the effect of alcohol, even in small quantities.