Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I find this hard to believe, unless we are stretching the bounds of "involved" to mean that /any/ participant in /any/ event where-in they had /any/ alcohol detectable in their bloodstream is "alcohol involved". I don't see how alcohol could be the causative factor in this significant a number of fatalities, as someone who regularly consumes alcohol in safe ways. Maybe I'm simply not as reckless as most other people (other parts of my life would seem to indicate this may be true), but this is a huge statement that seems to be largely unsubstantiated in the article.



There are no safe ways to consume alcohol. The only completely safe amount is zero.

https://thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2818%293...


This study seems to conclude that moderate drinking has minimal negative impact. Having a glass of wine with dinner or a cocktail on the weekend trends towards negative but mild long-term effects, but nothing disastrous.

Pretty much what you’d expect, hence my puzzlement.


Speaking in absolutes is rarely helpful or informative.

There is no safe way to leave your house. The only completely safe option is to stay in a bunker.


> Speaking in absolutes is rarely helpful or informative.

The study I link and from which I quote is rather informative.


I agree it is quite interesting.

If you look to figure 5 you will see that moderate drinking has very low impact on relative risk, and figure 4 shows some moderate benefit with respect to ischemic heart disease and diabetes. IF you buy into this kind of high level analysis, drinking 1-3 drinks a day may lower your risk for these diseases ~10-20%.

At the end of the day, the conclusions are much the same as people would intuit. moderate drinking has little impact, may help some conidiations and exacerbate others and will depend on the individual. for the average person, the effect will be slightly negative.

What I find most shocking is that you have to get to 5-6 drinks before relative risk hits 1.5X. 30-40 drinks/week is a lot for non-alcoholics.


You say :

> At the end of the day, the conclusions are much the same as people would intuit. moderate drinking has little impact, may help some conidiations and exacerbate others and will depend on the individual. for the average person, the effect will be slightly negative.

You are of course free to interpret facts as you wish. However, the study from 195 countries and over 26 years, literally, and I copy word for word from its conclusion, says :

"Our results show that the safest level of drinking is none."

And in the paragraph where that phrase is, anyone interested can find what they say about the supposed and non-existent benefits of moderate drinking.


I think we are talking past each other.

I agree the paper claims that the net health benefit of drinking for the average person is negative.

1) However, it also shows some benefits associated with drinking for prevention of specific diseases.

2) It also shows only minor net health issues for moderate drinking.

The The claim that, on average, the safest level of drinking does not negate the points above. They can both be true.


It’s because total deaths are rare in the age range (20-64.)




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: