4 ms·

> the rules the UK has for limiting paracetamol purchases to small amount per day are so fantastically stupid Worse than that: it is effectively per day per sh

> the rules the UK has for limiting paracetamol purchases to small amount per day are so fantastically stupid Worse than that: it is effectively per day per shop. In a very short space of time I can buy two packs in Boots, two in Tesco, two in Sainsbury, ooh look another small Tesco I'll get two there as well, two from Savers, two from SuperDrug, …

xnorswap 1y ago
And yet the policy appears to have been effective in reducing overdoses.
- dghlsakjg 1y ago
  Overdoses declined in the US, as well, where there are no limits on quantity, but there has been a campaign to educate and create better labeling practices for medication containing acetaminophen. I think it's important to recognize that overdoses can be intentional or unintentional, and it isn't clear which ones will be affected by the policy of limiting purchase quantity per transaction. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5676300/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5676300/
- refurb 1y ago
  Based on what? The US went with the educational route - any product containing acetaminophen has “CONTAIN ACETAMINOPHEN - DO NOT COMBINE WITH OTHER PRODUCTS CONTAINING ACETAMINOPHEN” Overdoses went down despite the fact I can buy $1,000 tablets for $5 at Costco.
  - OJFord 1y ago
    Based on studies⁰ that examined it. The fact that another country had success with a different technique too doesn't mean it wasn't successful. [0]: E.g. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23393081/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23393081/
    - refurb 1y ago
      That study is...not that rigorous, but I give them points for being clear about it. "The downward step change was not apparent when the intervention point was moved back to the beginning of 1998." "Despite the apparent benefits of the 1998 legislation, there continues to be a considerable number of deaths each year due to paracetamol poisoning" "One limitation of this study was that we only used data for deaths for poisoning with paracetamol (with or without alcohol), in pure or compound form. We did not use data for deaths where paracetamol was consumed with other drugs." They had to take the available data and massage it like a Thai masseuse to find what they were looking for. Not to mention they estimate a decrease of 7 deaths per year, where the post-change level is 121 deaths per year. That's a 5% change, so it's not surprising they had to look at the data a number of ways to even find a change.
hn_throw2025 1y ago
I did something similar when the whole household was coming down with Covid...
delusional 1y ago
Worse in what ways? I think it's a pretty neat feature of the design. If you just need some, you don't get a lot, and you don't get to buy a lot "just in case". If you truly need a lot, you can go though the hassle of going to multiple stores. It's essentially just raising a barrier for (under normal circumstances) undesirable behavior.
- oakwhiz 1y ago
  I think being able to buy a lot of medicine just in case is an amazing feature that makes me less dependent on the supply chain.
  - beAbU 1y ago
    You can buy you entire year's supply of panadol by simply shop-hopping through the main street. What's the problem?
    - oakwhiz 1y ago
      To me it's really the principle of having lots of ridiculous rules that amount to a pile of little inconveniences all over every facet of modern life. It's not a logical reason to have a problem with it, but I would prefer to see a more logical set of rules that don't seem to be so ridiculous and maze like when you are doing something that is just slightly out of the norm.
- dspillett 1y ago
  > Worse in what ways? It doesn't do what it is sold as doing¹ while causing a bit of faf. The restriction is one of those put in place because someone somewhere want to be seen to be doing something. > for (under normal circumstances) undesirable behavior. Outside of a supply problem situation, which we don't have for that sort of thing and different at the time the change came in, why is it so undesirable? -------- [1] Reducing accidental overdose rates², reducing people using out-dated-so-possibly-ineffective medicines, etc. [2] Accidental overdose rates have fallen, but they have in many places without those restrictions, so I suspect that is a coincidence and probably more due to greater awareness³ of there being paracetamol or aspirin in other products and therefore the need to be careful what you take in combination. [3] Due to better labelling?

xnorswap 1y ago

And yet the policy appears to have been effective in reducing overdoses.

dghlsakjg 1y ago
Overdoses declined in the US, as well, where there are no limits on quantity, but there has been a campaign to educate and create better labeling practices for medication containing acetaminophen. I think it's important to recognize that overdoses can be intentional or unintentional, and it isn't clear which ones will be affected by the policy of limiting purchase quantity per transaction. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5676300/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5676300/
refurb 1y ago
Based on what? The US went with the educational route - any product containing acetaminophen has “CONTAIN ACETAMINOPHEN - DO NOT COMBINE WITH OTHER PRODUCTS CONTAINING ACETAMINOPHEN” Overdoses went down despite the fact I can buy $1,000 tablets for $5 at Costco.
- OJFord 1y ago
  Based on studies⁰ that examined it. The fact that another country had success with a different technique too doesn't mean it wasn't successful. [0]: E.g. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23393081/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23393081/
  - refurb 1y ago
    That study is...not that rigorous, but I give them points for being clear about it. "The downward step change was not apparent when the intervention point was moved back to the beginning of 1998." "Despite the apparent benefits of the 1998 legislation, there continues to be a considerable number of deaths each year due to paracetamol poisoning" "One limitation of this study was that we only used data for deaths for poisoning with paracetamol (with or without alcohol), in pure or compound form. We did not use data for deaths where paracetamol was consumed with other drugs." They had to take the available data and massage it like a Thai masseuse to find what they were looking for. Not to mention they estimate a decrease of 7 deaths per year, where the post-change level is 121 deaths per year. That's a 5% change, so it's not surprising they had to look at the data a number of ways to even find a change.

hn_throw2025 1y ago

I did something similar when the whole household was coming down with Covid...

delusional 1y ago

Worse in what ways? I think it's a pretty neat feature of the design. If you just need some, you don't get a lot, and you don't get to buy a lot "just in case". If you truly need a lot, you can go though the hassle of going to multiple stores. It's essentially just raising a barrier for (under normal circumstances) undesirable behavior.

oakwhiz 1y ago
I think being able to buy a lot of medicine just in case is an amazing feature that makes me less dependent on the supply chain.
- beAbU 1y ago
  You can buy you entire year's supply of panadol by simply shop-hopping through the main street. What's the problem?
  - oakwhiz 1y ago
    To me it's really the principle of having lots of ridiculous rules that amount to a pile of little inconveniences all over every facet of modern life. It's not a logical reason to have a problem with it, but I would prefer to see a more logical set of rules that don't seem to be so ridiculous and maze like when you are doing something that is just slightly out of the norm.
dspillett 1y ago
> Worse in what ways? It doesn't do what it is sold as doing¹ while causing a bit of faf. The restriction is one of those put in place because someone somewhere want to be seen to be doing something. > for (under normal circumstances) undesirable behavior. Outside of a supply problem situation, which we don't have for that sort of thing and different at the time the change came in, why is it so undesirable? -------- [1] Reducing accidental overdose rates², reducing people using out-dated-so-possibly-ineffective medicines, etc. [2] Accidental overdose rates have fallen, but they have in many places without those restrictions, so I suspect that is a coincidence and probably more due to greater awareness³ of there being paracetamol or aspirin in other products and therefore the need to be careful what you take in combination. [3] Due to better labelling?