Government Alcohol Limits

[Alan H]

Government Alcohol Limits Aren’t Meant To Limit Your Alcohol Intake

The 14-unit limit is based on a risk level. If you drink this much, the evidence suggests, you’ll have a 1% chance of dying of an alcohol-related cause, according to the new guidelines.

[David Spiegelhalter, a professor of the understanding of risk at Cambridge University] said “What I like about the guidelines is they’ve explicitly said what they mean by low-risk. They’re not saying this is safe, they’re saying this is the level of risk.

[Dave B]

Dying of alcohol related disease - 1%

Dying of heart failure >>>>1%


Cheers folks! Glug, glug, glug...

[Ninny]

Dying of heart failure - quick
Dying of alcohol-related diseases - slow and extremely painful, also expensive to NHS

[jaywhat]

Perhaps the producers of drama on TV might think about cutting down on the drinking; especially in the soaps which is often quite excessive for example in Coronation Street. They could even be 'encouraged'.

[Alan H]

Two analyses of the guidelines.

The first by David Spiegelhalter, Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge: Medicine, poison, poison, poison, ……

And a more detailed analysis by statistician, Adam Jacobs: NEW ALCOHOL GUIDELINES

[Tetenterre]

Perhaps HMGovernment ought to behave as though it believes what it decrees and stop subsidising alcohol in the many bars in the HoP. And also demand sobriety (at least consistent with what is required in most other workplaces) from MPs, etc. when they are making laws that affect the rest of us.

(And I'll just use this as an excuse to plug a so-far spectacularly unsuccessful Change.Org petition that Mrs Tet started.)

As for the data on which the latest guidelines are supposedly based:
http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.co. ... ading.html

[Alan H]

As for the data on which the latest guidelines are supposedly based:
http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.co. ... ading.html

I disagree with what appears to be the basic premise of that blog post (and much of the media reporting of it). As I understand it, the guidelines are not about telling us not to drink more than 14 units a week, but telling us that if you do drink 14 units a week, you increase your lifetime risk of death by 1%. So this isn't a lowering of the drink limit (as has been widely reported, along with accusations of a nanny state), but giving us the information on the risk so we can make decisions for ourselves depending on whether we want to take that risk or not. It's changing the way Government guidance is presented so it becomes less prescriptive.

The data are complicated and I understand very little of them. I've tried to plough through Adam's analysis and found it too heavy going for me. There way well be an argument about how Davies came to her conclusion and how it's presented, but I think we'll need to wait and see whether she responds to the criticisms. However, does anyone feel they are completely wrong?

I think that how complex data like that are presented to the public is very interesting. In this case, probably very few will understand all the data. Spiegelhalter has condensed that down to Medicine, poison, poison, poison, … but it seems even that simple message is too complicated for some journalists.

[animist]

(And I'll just use this as an excuse to plug a so-far spectacularly unsuccessful Change.Org petition that Mrs Tet started.)

well done Mrs Tet. I have just signed this petition, which gives it a 0.0001 increased probability of success

[animist]

(And I'll just use this as an excuse to plug a so-far spectacularly unsuccessful Change.Org petition that Mrs Tet started.)

well done Mrs Tet. I have just signed this petition, which gives it a 0.01 increased probability of success?

[getreal]

I'm in favour of the government revising the advice. I'm also shocked at the amount people during and think is ok. I have many friends who drink a bottle of wine most nights with their meal.

There has been an acceptance of high levels of alcohol intake in this country for too long. The levels of liver disease are getting higher and people affected getting younger. Alcohol related dementia like is also on the increase.

Liver disease is a truly horrible way to go. And expensive for the NHS.

But I think it'll take more than revising the guidelines. There needs to be a concerted effort to persuade the public that a lot of them are drinking far too much. Minimum pricing by unit of alcohol would help.

[Tetenterre]

As for the data on which the latest guidelines are supposedly based:
http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.co. ... ading.html

I disagree with what appears to be the basic premise of that blog post (and much of the media reporting of it). As I understand it, the guidelines are not about telling us not to drink more than 14 units a week, but telling us that if you do drink 14 units a week, you increase your lifetime risk of death by 1% (snippage).

Quite. Call me a cynic, but I'd be very surprised if this is not used, at a later date, as an excuse to tax alcohol even more "for our own good".

PS: @animist: thanks :-)

[Dave B]

Perhaps they should put a "health tax" on booze, fags etc. going directly into healthcare.

But I would not trust them to keep it that way, syphoning it off for idelogically motivated policies instead.

[Alan H]

Perhaps they should put a "health tax" on booze, fags etc. going directly into healthcare.

But I would not trust them to keep it that way, syphoning it off for idelogically motivated policies instead.

Yep. I strongly suspect it would just be used to displace existing funding.