Britons giving up booze?!

[floo]

No harm in moderate drinking. People have different ideas about what is moderate  , to me a couple of glasses of wine of an eveening is OK. A little red wine is reputed to be good for the health, that's what I tells meself anyway.

I think what many people consider moderate, is what health experts would consider a lot. The units that one should not drink more of during the week has gone down, I believe. Many drinkers would drinking more units than recommended.  I thought red wine being good for one's health has been blown out of the water. Apparently people should have at least one, if not more, alcohol free days a week.

[Robbie]

No argument from me there, can't imagine drinking every day. Small wine glasses, not as small as sherry glasses but nowhere near as big as those great goblet things that some people have! In restaurants now they waiter asks if you want a large or small glass if you're not buying a bottle.. Red wine is good for you but not more than a small glass or two.

Wouldn't bother me to give up booze but like Trentvoyager, there are times when it helps to relax.

(How are you after your recent injuyr floo?)

[floo]

No argument from me there, can't imagine drinking every day. Small wine glasses, not as small as sherry glasses but nowhere near as big as those great goblet things that some people have! In restaurants now they waiter asks if you want a large or small glass if you're not buying a bottle.. Red wine is good for you but not more than a small glass or two.

Wouldn't bother me to give up booze but like Trentvoyager, there are times when it helps to relax.

(How are you after your recent injuyr floo?)

Read my earlier post 23 where I mention it.

[Robbie]

You're doing well if you'e moving furniture floo! Don't overdo it though. You don't say if you can drive again yet.

[floo]

You're doing well if you'e moving furniture floo! Don't overdo it though. You don't say if you can drive again yet.

I have been able to drive since about two days after my injury, thank goodness, as it is my right arm and I can turn the steering wheel without difficulty. If it was my left arm I would be stuffed as I couldn't reach down sufficiently well to change the gears. As for moving the furniture, that is all down to you. You suggested getting rid of the TV so we got rid of the spare one, and moved things around now it is no longer there. I am paying for my efforts yesterday, my arm is more painful, and my back hurts too.

 WHEN WILL I EVER LEARN?

[Robbie]

Give yourself a couple of days off floo, you need time to heal!

[floo]

Give yourself a couple of days off floo, you need time to heal!

I wish, who else is going to do the cooking, the cleaning, the washing etc?

[Sassy]

Hi everyone,

Here is an article about this.

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-39785742

Is that a good sign?! 

Cheers.

Sriram

Wow!  Only 8,000 people in Britain actually drink? 

Reality check!  Another survey and what if the 8,000 are social drinkers in that they only drink at weddings and Christmas?
We sometimes need to realise the 8,000 surveyed means nothing. Like a drop of water compared to an ocean in the great scheme of things.  Sorry Sriram, but 8,000!!!! really?>

[Robbie]

I too would find it difficult to believe that only 8,000 people in Britain drink alcohol sassy but the poll doesn't actually say that. What is says is:

"The 2016 poll of nearly 8,000 Britons found just under 60% had had a drink in the past week - the lowest rate since the survey began in 2005.

Of those who had not had a drink, half were teetotallers."

Only 8,000 people took part in the survey anyway, to be almost accurate the entire adult population would have to be questioned. Not everyone answers survey questions truthfully either.

[Harrowby Hall]

Only 8,000 people took part in the survey anyway, to be almost accurate the entire adult population would have to be questioned. Not everyone answers survey questions truthfully either.

Is this a subject in which you have expertise, Robinson, or just your uninformed opinion?

A survey involving a demographically-stratified random sample of 8,000 respondents to an appropriately designed and delivered questionnaire is likely to give a very accurate report of population behaviour. It is not necessary to survey the entire population.

[Gordon]

Only 8,000 people took part in the survey anyway, to be almost accurate the entire adult population would have to be questioned. Not everyone answers survey questions truthfully either.

Impractical, for obvious reasons, which is why an essential aspect of research like this is how they obtained their sample, which is where the sampling method used is relevant.

[Robbie]

Yes it would be impractical even impossible; Sassy thought the article stated only 8,000 people here drank, unless I misunderstood her which is why i chipped in because it didn't say that.

The figures came from the ONS which is supposed to collect data reliably.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes it would be impractical even impossible; Sassy thought the article stated only 8,000 people here drank, unless I misunderstood her which is why i chipped in because it didn't say that.

The figures came from the ONS which is supposed to collect data reliably.

No, Sassy was denying the point of sampling and being ignorant of statistics

[Robbie]

Oh fair enough. i'm not a sociologist either so two confused posters.

[Sassy]

Is this a subject in which you have expertise, Robinson, or just your uninformed opinion?

A survey involving a demographically-stratified random sample of 8,000 respondents to an appropriately designed and delivered questionnaire is likely to give a very accurate report of population behaviour. It is not necessary to survey the entire population.

Wishful, thinking in it's element.
Take the entire population of great Britain. Look at 8,000 people in a Muslim area. Look at 8,000 people in a poor area.
Religion and unable to afford it comes to mind.
Is any area completely free of religion or poverty that is not affluent?

Sorry but logical reasoning shows that taking 8,000 people from anywhere does not work to give an accurate reading.
Reality checks often make the acceptable become impossible.

[Sassy]

Yes it would be impractical even impossible; Sassy thought the article stated only 8,000 people here drank, unless I misunderstood her which is why i chipped in because it didn't say that.

The figures came from the ONS which is supposed to collect data reliably.

You misunderstood me... 
I was stating that 8,000 people being surveyed does not give a correct result. Thanks for the laugh, Robinson.
But the breweries would be shut by now over here if only 8,000 people drank alcohol. LOL.

[Gordon]

Wishful, thinking in it's element.
Take the entire population of great Britain. Look at 8,000 people in a Muslim area. Look at 8,000 people in a poor area.
Religion and unable to afford it comes to mind.
Is any area completely free of religion or poverty that is not affluent?

Sorry but logical reasoning shows that taking 8,000 people from anywhere does not work to give an accurate reading.
Reality checks often make the acceptable become impossible.

I take it that you're unaware of the various sampling methods used by researchers.

[Sassy]

I take it that you're unaware of the various sampling methods used by researchers.

I think over the years we are aware of sampling results and methods.
We also know not everyone tells the truth.
Surely, Gordon, you are not going to tell me that they a foolproof and without error so perfect?
We know you are not. So what was the point of asking me?
I like you Gordon but sometimes you do say things just for the sake of asking.
If it was not so early, I would say take a bit more water with it, or at least ice.
 

[Gordon]

I think over the years we are aware of sampling results and methods.
We also know not everyone tells the truth.
Surely, Gordon, you are not going to tell me that they a foolproof and without error so perfect?
We know you are not. So what was the point of asking me?
I like you Gordon but sometimes you do say things just for the sake of asking.
If it was not so early, I would say take a bit more water with it, or at least ice.
 

In your earlier post you noted 'Look at 8,000 people in a Muslim area. Look at 8,000 people in a poor area.'', either of which would be useless as a representative sample of the general population.

All samples involve a margin of error, which is where the statistical aspects apply. 

[Harrowby Hall]

Wishful, thinking in it's element.
Take the entire population of great Britain. Look at 8,000 people in a Muslim area. Look at 8,000 people in a poor area.
Religion and unable to afford it comes to mind.
Is any area completely free of religion or poverty that is not affluent?

Sorry but logical reasoning shows that taking 8,000 people from anywhere does not work to give an accurate reading.
Reality checks often make the acceptable become impossible.

Logical reasoning? What does this mean? I certainly cannot see evidence of any in your response.

if you do not know the difference between a population and a sample, if you do not understand the principles of demographic stratification, if you are not adept in the practices of statistical analysis and if you do not know how to define "random" then you are not capable  of applying any form of reasoning - be it "logical" or not - to a task such as this.

And then you have to define your data collection methods ...

[Robbie]

Ah sounds like Cosgrove!

[Sassy]

Logical reasoning? What does this mean? I certainly cannot see evidence of any in your response.

if you do not know the difference between a population and a sample, if you do not understand the principles of demographic stratification, if you are not adept in the practices of statistical analysis and if you do not know how to define "random" then you are not capable  of applying any form of reasoning - be it "logical" or not - to a task such as this.

And then you have to define your data collection methods ...

Well, that is because you haven't the presence of mind to see the different responses of individuals in the world regarding this issue.  The point being made was that a sample cannot represent the whole.
But that would be too easy for you. Your post is more about insulting the other person and not the contents of the post.
You could start collecting data on how many people tend to open their mouth and put their foot in it.
Using yourself for the example when collecting your data... If you have a problem with the logic of this post, don't worry, remove your foot from your mouth and it will become clear to you.

[Gordon]

Well, that is because you haven't the presence of mind to see the different responses of individuals in the world regarding this issue.  The point being made was that a sample cannot represent the whole.

Done properly that is what a sample is intended to be (in reflecting the relevant details of the population being studied).

But that would be too easy for you. Your post is more about insulting the other person and not the contents of the post.
You could start collecting data on how many people tend to open their mouth and put their foot in it.
Using yourself for the example when collecting your data... If you have a problem with the logic of this post, don't worry, remove your foot from your mouth and it will become clear to you.

So, as I thought, with this response to HH it is clear that you don't really understand sampling, the related statistics or research methods in general.

[Sassy]

Done properly that is what a sample is intended to be (in reflecting the relevant details of the population being studied).

So, as I thought, with this response to HH it is clear that you don't really understand sampling, the related statistics or research methods in general.

Gordon,

I am sure that sampling the few can never really reflect the masses.
What my reply does not and cannot do is show any lack of understanding.
My view still remains the same and shows that it has NOTHING TO DO with the amount used for the sample in that it did not and cannot reflect the true result it tries to claim.

What I also know is that NO ONE no  matter where they are from or what research department they belong to, have the right method for saying Britains are giving up booze when they ask their questions of 8,000 people.

It is illogical for the sampling/questioning of  8,000 people to be an exact  method of reflecting the other millions of people.
How many of the 8,000 were child drinkers underage in their teens? So many reasons why just choosing 8,000 people
presumably men and women of the legal age for drinking can never reflect the truth about what Britains drink.
Personally, being a human being is being able to think for ourselves and know why such a survery means absolutely NOTHING
in the scheme of all things in reality.

They could not and did not include all the possibilities when it came to choosing whom they would ask and what they would ask.

[floo]

Thus spake Sass!