The world is full of people who strongly and honestly believe anecdotes are more important than statistics and statistics are meaninglessly astrological in nature. Its a very popular set of beliefs, majority in some areas.
The world is full of people like you who thinks that making this comment ensures you're intellectually superior to others.
I, of course, know what statistics is and how to interpret it , I'm aware drinking isn't especially good for ones health and other aspect of ones life, which is why I'm currently...not drinking.
I'm also aware how silly it is to worry about it and make absolutely claims like "No level..blah".
No level of C02 from fossil fuels is good for us anymore; However, I'm certain you'll get in your car and drive or on a plane and fly soon enough.
The point I'm trying to make is that what matters one minute often seems inconsequential the next, regardless of statistics.
For example, the WHO provides quite shocking statistics on the dangerous of food fires and other heating / cooking methods which are used in my neighborhood: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/household-a..., it freaks me out but I can't do much about it or my neighbors use of a wood stove. Should I move?
So while I think it's been obvious for sometime, alcohol is bad for ones health, smoke is also bad for ones health, is there anything really new or wise in this bulletin from the WHO, I don't think so really.
Have a read of this on the WHO's website:
FACT: Alcohol-based sanitizers are safe for everyone to use
Alcohols in the sanitizers have not been shown to create any relevant health issues. Little alcohol is absorbed into the skin, and most products contain an emollient to reduce skin dryness. Allergic contact dermatitis and bleaching of hand hair due to alcohol are very rare adverse effects. Accidental swallowing and intoxication have been described in rare cases.
So in this case, my body will adsorb alcohol, but in this case it's ok because it's on another page separate from the one we're discussing?
The next level up are people that have no actual understanding of statistics, empirical reasoning, and the weaknesses therein but have learned that if you throw certain science-y words together your arguments will tend land better.
The problem is that how well anyone's particular life circumstances fit into a statistical model (or not) can be a very difficult thing to discern. There is a combinatorial explosion of factors that everyone is subject to, and most epidemiological statistics can address and account for a handful of them at a time. So what ends up happening is folks look at the statistics, shrug, and continue their own n=1. The best they can do is be honest with themselves about "how is that working out for you?"
