TOPIC:

"Tube":3ep65hkx wrote: You are: the word "deaths".

That graphs the death rates, not the actual levels of cirrhosis in each country.

That graph is a function of cirrhosis levels and the health services of each country.[/quote:3ep65hkx]

So we have lots of sufferers, but our health service is so good that a lot more of them survive. Hmmm.

It's interesting that that table is ordered by "change" rather than deaths per 100,000, if someone could re-order it by deaths then you would find Ireland very near the bottom. But of course that wouldn't fit the criteria of the WHO.

What changed between 1990 and 2003 in Ireland to see this increase, small in the greater scheme of things though it is. And what happened in those countries with the greatest reduction in deaths? Presumably the proponents of minimum pricing will have us believe that something similar to their plan happened in those countries, I would have my doubts.

From a first glance, the Czech Republic saw a higher increase in affordability of alcohol than ourselves yet saw a decrease in deaths per 100,000.

"sbillings":39yxoryy wrote:

"Tube":39yxoryy wrote: You are: the word "deaths".

That graphs the death rates, not the actual levels of cirrhosis in each country.

That graph is a function of cirrhosis levels and the health services of each country.[/quote:39yxoryy]

So we have lots of sufferers, but our health service is so good that a lot more of them survive. Hmmm.[/quote:39yxoryy]
Fact is it graphs mortality not morbidity. While I dislike the HSE as much as the next man there's also a societal thing. Getting cirrhosis would be a wake-up call for anyone I know to quit drinking, and while they may die with it, they won't die from it. We also probably have the best support system for recovering alcoholics in Europe.

If you want to have a look at a study on mortality vs morbidity in England, there's one here in the British Medical Journal[/url:2djpwtw3].

Interestingly where the primary diagnosis was alcohol cirrhosis in the Oxford area the survival rate was 63% after hospital admission, with a higher survival rate in the upper social classes. I'm assuming this is because of better healthcare.

[img:2djpwtw3]http://gut.bmj.com/content/54/11/1615/F2.medium.gif[/img:2djpwtw3]

On a related note. <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="">

I certainly didn't expect us to be bottom of the league for any kind of alcohol related harm, but if our health service is better at dealing with it, it explains why the death rate is so low.

Anyway, I have done a new blog post as promised. I examined both the Rand report and the Irish Steering Group report on national substance misuse and came up with this:

How does per capita alcohol consumption affect alcohol related harm?[/url:1ktodquv]