Booze figures: They\’re lying even more than I thought they were

I complained about what they are doing here.

We do have, the way that they are counting, an increase in admissions related to alcohol. This is partly because of the following effect: there has been a rise in admissions. Actually, there\’s been a 40% or so rise in admissions over the decade. And, if you are, as they are, stating that 0.3 of this type of admission is booze related and then 0.2 of that type, then a rise in overall admissions will lead to a rise in booze related admissions.

BTW, a rise in admissions when spending on the health care system roughly doubles is not a great surprise, whatever the underlying health of the nation.

Over here we get more of the necessary information.

This is speculative, but my guess is that the alleged rise in alcohol-related hospital admissions is in fact a rise in obesity-related hospital admissions, which are linked to some of the same diagnoses at similar ages.  Perhaps the statisticians behind this weekend\’s newspaper stories could find time to look into this hypothesis.

We know, absolutely, that there has been a change in the pattern of disease (or ill health perhaps) over the decade. Yet the proportions of ill health which are defined as being alcohol related have been held static over that decade.

To be absurd for a moment, if plague was definied as being 0.3 of an alcohol admission then the Black Death would have showed a rise in alcohol related admissions.

To be not absurd for a moment, many of the diseases and illnesses associated with obesity are defined as being some portion of an alcohol related admission. Meaning that as muffin tops spread then so do booze related admissions.

These statistics simply are not fit for use.

Yet, as we can see, they are being used to pressure for minimum prices, higher booze taxes and in general, the imposition of Methodist values on a non-Methodist population. Next up the cooking of the numbers about dancing so that the Baptists can have a go, eh?

8 comments on “Booze figures: They\’re lying even more than I thought they were

  1. What a load of puritanical bullsh*t.

    I’ll open another bottle of red wine tonight and enjoy half of it. So yar boo sucks.

    When wil they get round to sex? You could break your neck falling off the bed during an athletic romp.

    Walk in the park? Dog might get you, rabies?

    Reading a book? Have to get Health & Safety in to check the light is at the right level.

    If a guy is an alcoholic and a danger to himself and/or others deal with it, but leave the rest of us alone. Please.

  2. “If a guy is an alcoholic and a danger to himself and/or others deal with it…”

    If he’s a danger to others, sure. But to himself? Leave him to it.

  3. They’re saying that past figures are future figures. It’s totally illogical. If real alcohol admissions fell, they wouldn’t know. It wouldn’t affect their figures at all.

  4. Diabetes being a metabolic disorder causes over-weight (and death) if untreated – these days know as obesity because that word is intended to be frightening.

    There are plenty of cases where diabetes is asymptomatic, goes undetected and therefore untreated.

    Such patients are over-weight and when tested for diabetes – because over-weight “causes” diabetes – or if it becomes symptomatic, are found to have it, then “obesity” gets the blame.

  5. To be sure, even if alcohol-related admissions were going down, their figures would still show them going up.

  6. Someone once told me that the way literacy figures are calculated was useless. Anyone know anything about this?

  7. There’s also the fact that they routinely ask whether you’ve been drinking if you present at A&E, and if you say yes, then that’s a drink-related admission right there and then. No matter whether it was ten pints of Diamond White or a small glass of white wine.

    Plus, the more diseases and decreptitudes we can cure, the more people will suffer and die from those we can’t since the total must always be 100%.

    So yes, the statistics are politically-motivated nonsense.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>