JFKvsNixon Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 They said they came up with 14 units to rank it alongside driving. So Cyclone is pretty much right when he says they made up a number. They could have chosen any number of other activities to compare it against and recommended a totally different number, but I suspect they wanted to suggest a slightly smaller number than the existing number so chose driving as their magic comparison. Besides, driving is a totally rubbish comparison. Most of us don't choose to do it, and the average driver (8,000 miles pa) is probably even rarer than the average drinker. If they'd decided to compare it to travelling on public transport they'd be recommending zero units per week, or if they'd decided to compare it to cycling they'd be recommending 100 units per week, but I suspect they wanted to recommend about 14 which was already the average consumption. It's just the recommendation to do everything in moderation, dressed up in statistics. I read it as being - the benefits of drinking in moderation were previously slightly over estimated, backed up with statistics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 They said they came up with 14 units to rank it alongside driving. So Cyclone is pretty much right when he says they made up a number. They could have chosen any number of other activities to compare it against and recommended a totally different number, but I suspect they wanted to suggest a slightly smaller number than the existing number so chose driving as their magic comparison. Besides, driving is a totally rubbish comparison. Most of us don't choose to do it, and the average driver (8,000 miles pa) is probably even rarer than the average drinker. If they'd decided to compare it to travelling on public transport they'd be recommending zero units per week, or if they'd decided to compare it to cycling they'd be recommending 100 units per week, but I suspect they wanted to recommend about 14 which was already the average consumption. It's just the recommendation to do everything in moderation, dressed up in statistics. Have you read the actual guidelines? Do you understand how thwy went about formulating them. it doesnt sound like it to me. They didnt just make up a number they fixed a point based upon the evidence and their expert opinion as yo what an acceptable level of tisk would be, then went to the trouble of describing what difference it made drinking in excess of that level and below it. ---------- Post added 10-01-2016 at 19:58 ---------- I read it as being - the benefits of drinking in moderation were previously slightly over estimated, backed up with statistics. Your along the right lines. Just read the guidelines and then it will show you haow stypid and unjustified many of the answers on this thread are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 They'd say that a thorough review of the evidence over a protracted period of time led them to their recommendations. So what number of drinks does a quick google tell you that we should be drinking? Why would googling it be relevant? It's likely to link us straight to the government recommendation, which as I said, are not evidence lead... Simply reading the evidence and then plucking a number out of thin air is not "evidence lead". ---------- Post added 10-01-2016 at 20:51 ---------- They said they came up with 14 units to rank it alongside driving. So Cyclone is pretty much right when he says they made up a number. They could have chosen any number of other activities to compare it against and recommended a totally different number, but I suspect they wanted to suggest a slightly smaller number than the existing number so chose driving as their magic comparison. Besides, driving is a totally rubbish comparison. Most of us don't choose to do it, and the average driver (8,000 miles pa) is probably even rarer than the average drinker. If they'd decided to compare it to travelling on public transport they'd be recommending zero units per week, or if they'd decided to compare it to cycling they'd be recommending 100 units per week, but I suspect they wanted to recommend about 14 which was already the average consumption. It's just the recommendation to do everything in moderation, dressed up in statistics. Worse than that, it's an ongoing policy to influence the public (I'm fine with that), in order to improve health (I'm fine with that). The bit I'm not fine with, is the trickery and misdirection involved where they claim that the number they've chosen is evidence lead policy. It isn't. As you suggest, they've picked a number and then massaged statistics until that sort of supports the number they've decided on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 Why would googling it be relevant? It's likely to link us straight to the government recommendation, which as I said, are not evidence lead... Simply reading the evidence and then plucking a number out of thin air is not "evidence lead". ---------- Post added 10-01-2016 at 20:51 ---------- Worse than that, it's an ongoing policy to influence the public (I'm fine with that), in order to improve health (I'm fine with that). The bit I'm not fine with, is the trickery and misdirection involved where they claim that the number they've chosen is evidence lead policy. It isn't. As you suggest, they've picked a number and then massaged statistics until that sort of supports the number they've decided on. 1. Do you have any evidence they picked the number first and have distorted the statistics to suit their needs? 2. Why dont you believe the number they picked was based on evidence? 3. Have you read the actual guidelines? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 1. Surely the burden of proof is the other way around. The evidence to choose 14 units should be quite obvious... 2. See above, lack of any clear evidence or evidential reasoning. 3. Yes, unless there is more to them than is being reported in the press. (14 units a week, 2 'dry' days a week, don't drink 14 units in 1 sitting). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gomgeg Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 Have you read the actual guidelines? Do you understand how thwy went about formulating them. it doesnt sound like it to me. They didnt just make up a number they fixed a point based upon the evidence and their expert opinion as yo what an acceptable level of tisk would be, then went to the trouble of describing what difference it made drinking in excess of that level and below it. ---------- Post added 10-01-2016 at 19:58 ---------- Your along the right lines. Just read the guidelines and then it will show you haow stypid and unjustified many of the answers on this thread are. Flopping heck, thanks for telling me I'm one of the stypid ones, it must be the beer I had earlier. Thanks for the advice, now I'll think about stopping drinking. No, I've thought about it, I'll just carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 1. Surely the burden of proof is the other way around. The evidence to choose 14 units should be quite obvious... 2. See above, lack of any clear evidence or evidential reasoning. 3. Yes, unless there is more to them than is being reported in the press. (14 units a week, 2 'dry' days a week, don't drink 14 units in 1 sitting). If you read the guidelines as issued by the CMO, even the summary, then you will better appreciate how they reached a decision and what the significance of the guidelines are. This idea you are pushing about them selecting some random number and then massaging the figures is baloney. A team of experts including academics and clinicians spent nearly three years reviewing all the available evidence and research. So yes if you read the actual guidelines, then youll understand what their objectives are, what the significance of their advice is and how they reached it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 I didn't suggest it was random, I suggested it wasn't selected through some sort of medical evidence lead criteria and that other motives are at work. Do you have a link to the guidelines? (Do they actually expect people to search for, and then read a large document?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 Flopping heck, thanks for telling me I'm one of the stypid ones, it must be the beer I had earlier. Thanks for the advice, now I'll think about stopping drinking. No, I've thought about it, I'll just carry on. The guidelines are meant for people who wish to be informed at what the latest research indicates about the effects alcohol has on health, so they can make an informed decision. If you enjoy blissful ignorance, then they arent meant for you, although the information is out there for others who are interested in their health. ---------- Post added 10-01-2016 at 22:00 ---------- I didn't suggest it was random, I suggested it wasn't selected through some sort of medical evidence lead criteria and that other motives are at work. Do you have a link to the guidelines? (Do they actually expect people to search for, and then read a large document?) Ooh a conspiracy theory. What are their other motives then? Do you have any evidence of this? They took nearly 3 years reviewing the evidence before making their recommendations. The Health evidence expert group examined the evidence from 44 systematic reviews and meta-analyses published since the 1995 Sensible drinking report, and consulted experts recently involved in the updating of the Australian and Canadian alcohol guidelines. The group concluded that there is significant new, good quality evidence available on the effects of alcohol consumption on health, which was not available at the time of the 1995 review. This applies for both men and women. In particular, stronger evidence has emerged that the risk of a range of cancers, especially breast cancer, increases directly in line with consumption of any amount of alcohol. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/489795/summary.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/489797/CMO_Alcohol_Report.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/489797/CMO_Alcohol_Report.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/490560/List__of_documents_acc.pdf Do they expect people to search for and read a large document? Dont think so, but its all available for people who wnat to know hopw they made the decision and why. The summary in particular is written in a clear and informative manner. One of their issues was to keep the guidelines simple so people could take on board the information withoput confusing them with all the science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gomgeg Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 The guidelines are meant for people who wish to be informed at what the latest research indicates about the effects alcohol has on health, so they can make an informed decision. If you enjoy blissful ignorance, then they arent meant for you, although the information is out there for others who are interested in their health. Thanks for the advice. One of the things I can't understand is why anyone, ( I don't mean you of course ) would spend every waking hour on SF, and reading reports giving random advice on many subject which will probably change in the future. It might extend my life, but it would make it a miserable one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now