Sunday 27 September 2009

Retraction Of The Week, Not

From the BBC:

According to the government-commissioned study, a 40p minimum unit price - coupled with a ban on promotions - would cut the number of alcohol-related deaths by about 70 in its first year... Earlier this year, the chief medical officer for England, Sir Liam Donaldson, said such measures would save thousands of lives.

OK, everybody's allowed to make guesstimates and use round numbers, but that's still one heck of discrepancy. The latest made-up statistic is that there "were 8,724 alcohol-related deaths in 2007" (NSO). On the one hand, it would be impossible to "prove" that there were 70 fewer deaths; on the other hand, the only way they could get the number of deaths down by "thousands" would be to change the definition of alcohol-related ever so slightly (the same NSO figures say that there were 4,144 alcohol-related deaths in 1991, so the increase is almost certainly down to definition). In any event, the figure of 8,724 is barely one-and-a-half per cent of annual deaths in the UK.

I did like this bit as well:

Chief medical officer Harry Burns said: "All the evidence suggests that if you want to reduce alcohol-related harm, you need to look at price and availability, which are the key drivers of consumption. I've got to admit that initially I was sceptical about minimum pricing but when you look at the facts, it becomes a no-brainer."

Hmm. The strategy of reducing availability and hence increasing prices of things like, er, drugs has worked so-o-o-o well over the decades, hasn't it?

10 comments:

James Higham said...

Has anyone considered tailoring the price to a person's age?

60 year olds could enjoy a pint for 90p and 18 year olds would pay £5.40.

Mark Wadsworth said...

JH, but then 18 year olds would just get 60 year olds to buy their pints for them, the same as kids hanging round off licences asking you to buy cigarettes for them.

Mark Wadsworth said...

L, Mr C would be completely in favour, so I wouldn't ask him.

Curmudgeon said...

Oh yes, even if it were true, saving 70 deaths a year out of about 600,000 is going to make no noticeable difference to anything.

And does nobody consider that, the higher you make the minimum price, the more smuggling, legal home brewing and winemaking, and illegal home distilling, you end up with?

Make it high enough and large numbers of people will end up being killed by dodgy moonshine.

manwiddicombe said...

If you look into published Sheffield Uni research you'll be surprised (not) to find that they published a report stating exactly the same conclusions on 22nd July 2008.

Dear Prime Minister said...

What is an 'alcohol related death'? Death from consumption, drink driving accident victim or victim of drunken thuggery?

Pricing retail alcohol prohibitively will lead to all sorts of more serious problems like home made hooch and all the related criminal and health problems.

Mark Wadsworth said...

C, exactly.

CFF, at least they're consistent, but how on earth would you "prove" that you'd reduced 600,000 deaths to 599,930?

DPM, you tell me how many ARD's you'd like, and I'll change the definition to suit.

Anonymous said...

Dear Prime Minister,

If you go to the pub of an evening, and drink some lemonade, and are driven home by someone else who has drunk some lemonade, and are killed in a crash, that's an alcohol-related death if someone else in the vehicle has consumed any alcohol in the past 48 hours.

In other words, the people that create or quote 'alcohol related deaths' are lying scum.

Simple, really.

Brian, follower of Deornoth.

Lola said...

MW @15.39 - My point exactly!

Mark Wadsworth said...

L, true, my reply was probably superfluous, but it's the sort of thing that can't be said often enough.