tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-125653241615635488.post5475293591130174077..comments2024-01-18T20:42:30.221+00:00Comments on Thinking to some purpose: MUP as a lightning conductorWill Haydockhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00623145846257433457noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-125653241615635488.post-3073602177336154012014-01-14T23:37:55.181+00:002014-01-14T23:37:55.181+00:00Thanks for the comment. I'm not too bothered ...Thanks for the comment. I'm not too bothered about the semantics of 'fiscal'. I'm sure there is a neat term for interventions like MUP, but I can't think of it right now, so I can't blame them for using fiscal - and it would affect the revenue taken in taxation.<br /><br />I think there is something in your point about researchers having positions. I can't see a great deal of point in this debate talking about 'vested' interests, as some do; there are positions and interests certainly - and some of those come from people who don't sympathise with the pleasures of drinking, intoxication, outrageous behaviour, or whatever it is other people do that seems incomprehensible, irresponsible or even offensive.<br /><br />On the other hand, as I've said before, the terms of the debate get challenging when people who have no expertise in the field try to critique models or arguments - when in fact this is a way of hiding a more fundamental level of disagreement, based on ideology. That ideology shouldn't be hidden in the debates; it's actually a trump card.<br /><br />Finally, I'm afraid I can't agree with you on evidence versus modelling. I'm not sure what perfect 'evidence' would be available that itself wouldn't rely on statistical modelling, given the multiple factors affecting something like alcohol consumption or health. If modelling wasn't used on current, real-time data (which I assume is what you mean by 'evidence') then we wouldn't have any inkling of what effects were due to different variables. Even the stats we have on consumption and health tend to be representations based on samples and estimates sometimes with clear issues of validity/reliability (and therefore 'modelled' to produce population-wide estimates) rather than unequivocal facts. Policymaking will always be a compromise based on imperfect data. There might be a claim that the modelling isn't robust enough, but a distinction between 'evidence' and a 'model' just doesn't hold for me.Will Haydockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00623145846257433457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-125653241615635488.post-82132162713031552702014-01-12T15:23:58.526+00:002014-01-12T15:23:58.526+00:00The problem is that alcohol researchers are a pret...The problem is that alcohol researchers are a pretty credulous bunch, sustaining their field (and keeping critics out) by uncritical log-rolling of stuff they like, and ad hominem attacks on stuff they don't like. They also seem to be (how can I put this politely?) a bit epistemologically challenged - confusing a model (with no attempts at measuring goodness of fit) with evidence. Oh, yes, and the folk you mentioned from Glasgow http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24279299<br />seem not to understand that MUP is *not* a fiscal policy (for some commentators that is precisely what's wrong with it) - direct quote from the above<br />'Minimum unit pricing is a fiscal intervention intended to tackle the social and health harms from alcohol' <br />No, it isn't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com