Hacker News Reader

Comment by wolco | Hacker News Reader

That seems like a bad idea. Many people will die without any alcohol. Forcing people inside and then stopping the sales of cigarettes seems like it would create more agression in the short term.

View on HN

Part of the idea is to curb domestic violence and reduce the strain on emergency services [0]. I personally think that it will also help people budget, as most expected a three week lockdown but the reality is that many could be with reduced income for far longer

[0]: https://www.thesouthafrican.com/news/why-alcohol-sale-banned...

The cigarette ban would increase domestic violence as people without any support aid would be forced into limit spaces with partners. How do they justify that decision?

Out of curiosity how exactly would people die without any alcohol?

Withdrawal symptoms (primarily seizures, I believe) can be lethal.

People can be severely addicted to alcohol to the point of physical dependence.

https://www.medscape.com/answers/819502-79121/what-is-the-mo...

"The mortality rate from severe alcohol withdrawal and delirium tremens (DT) historically has been as high as 20% if untreated. Early recognition and improved treatment has reduced the mortality rate from DT to approximately 1-5%"

So this means people either die or go to emergency care with severe symptoms that require hospitalization, which obviously is to be avoided at a time like this.

Alcohol withdrawal can be fatal in some cases. I have a childhood friend who had multiple seizures from alcohol withdrawal and is it in a semi vegetative state.

Withdrawal symptoms of alcohol addiction can be pretty severe.

I think the OPs point would be it would lead to more aggression and that then would lead to the more deaths.

Now I don't know if that link exists and in fact I suspect it could be the opposite, as many people become more aggressive the more they drink.

No, they're talking about severe withdrawal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com