[DanBC]

The study is very clear.

> Previous research has analysed all-cause risk due to alcohol use by either investigating all-cause risk in particular cohorts and survey series, or through meta-analyses of those studies.26,27 Past findings subsequently suggested a persistent protective effect for some low or moderate levels of alcohol consumption on all-cause mortality. However, these studies were limited by small sample sizes, inadequate control for confounders, and non-optimal choices of a reference category for calculating relative risks. More recent research, which has used methodologies such as mendelian randomisation, pooling cohort studies, and multivariable adjusted meta-analyses, increasingly shows either a non-significant or no protective effect of drinking on all-cause mortality or cardiovascular outcomes.7,14,28 Our results on the weighted attributable risk are consistent with this body of work. Taken together, these findings emphasise that alcohol use, regardless of amount, leads to health loss across populations. Although we found some protective effects for ischaemic heart disease and diabetes among women, these effects were offset when overall health risks were considered—especially because of the strong association between alcohol consumption and the risk of cancer, injuries, and communic-able disease. These findings stress the importance of assessing how alcohol use affects population health across the lifespan.

[vasilipupkin]

Yes, it’s very clear but people interpret it incorrectly nonetheless. For example, since population as a whole drinks and drives, alcohol would reduce longevity in population as a whole. Which has nothing to do with a personal decision to drink or not, since you can drink and not drive. The point about communicable diseases is simply irrelevant for most readers of this website.