Aside from using the term “bleedin’ obvious” I cannot properly form a good joke to frame this study.~cr
UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD
**Strictly embargoed until 00:01 (GMT) Thursday 3 February 2022**
Lockdown measures linked to an increase in drinking at home
- New research which looks at how lockdown has shifted drinking habits in England and Scotland has been published
- The findings show an increase in at-home late-night drinking as well as solitary drinking
- Researchers say at-home drinking is an under researchered area and highlight the need to monitor the long term effects of at-home drinking behavior
Lockdown measures throughout 2020 have been linked to people in Scotland and England drinking more at home, according to new research.
The latest study, from researchers at the University of Sheffield and University of Glasgow, measured the impact of COVID-19 restrictions in 2020 on drinking practices, using data on almost 300,000 adult drinkers.
The study, published in the journal Addiction, found that while people were broadly drinking the same amount of alcohol during periods of restrictions as they were when no restrictions were in place, lockdowns appeared to be linked to a shift in habits to at-home, late evening drinking.
In Scotland, the study found that there was also an increase in solitary drinking, although researchers say this could be explained by a higher proportion of people living alone in Scotland than in England.
At-home drinking remains an under-researched area, and while the long-term impacts of these recent changes are not yet known, the study authors suggest that these new drinking habits should be closely monitored as we move into a period of fewer restrictions.
During the first UK lockdown, venues such as pubs and restaurants were closed, affecting the type of locations where people could drink alcohol. Restrictions were eased from July 2020, with pubs and restaurants gradually allowed to reopen. However, from September 2020 in response to rising case numbers, a series of national and local restrictions were put in place that once again impacted hospitality settings.
The research team studied 41,500 adult drinkers in Scotland and more than 250,000 adult drinkers in England, focusing on the original March 2020 lockdown, the easing of restrictions in July 2020 and the onset of further restrictions in September 2020 until December 2020.
While figures show there was no statistical difference in the total number of alcohol units consumed each week during different periods of the first year of the pandemic, more detailed analysis reveals that lockdown restrictions were associated with people starting to drink later in the day, and in Scotland where there is a higher proportion of people living alone, with more solitary drinking.
Dr Abigail Stevely, co-author of the study from the University of Sheffield’s Alcohol Research Group, said: “Despite some concerns that people might drink more in the day-time, we actually found that there was a shift towards people starting drinking later in the evening during lockdown restrictions. This perhaps reflects changes in people’s routines and the absence of opportunities for daytime socialising such as going to the pub with colleagues after work.
“Although we found that lockdown restrictions did not change overall levels of alcohol consumption, there is evidence from other studies that heavier drinkers may have increased their consumption. It will be therefore important to continue monitoring drinking during the pandemic to prevent additional health problems in future.”
The study’s findings suggest shop-bought alcohol consumption increased following the March 2020 lockdown and remained persistently higher than previous years throughout the rest of 2020, even in the period when lockdown restrictions were eased. Meanwhile, hospitality alcohol consumption decreased following the March 2020 lockdown and remained lower than previous years throughout the remainder of 2020.
The researchers believe this is most likely explained by three reasons: even when on-trade premises reopened they were operating at reduced capacity; some venues (e.g. nightclubs and live music venues) remained closed; some people will have continued to stay away from hospitality settings even in periods of lesser restrictions over fears of catching COVID-19.
Dr Iain Hardie, lead author of the study from the University of Glasgow MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, said: “Going forward it remains unclear what the long-term consequences will be of the changes in alcohol consumption in 2020. With hospitality premises back operating at closer to full capacity it’s likely that alcohol consumption in these venues will move closer to pre-pandemic levels, although they could potentially decline again in response to new variants if restrictions are reintroduced or people are afraid of indoor spaces.
“However, the increase in home drinking in 2020 is a concern. We know from other studies that alcohol related harm has risen during the pandemic. The increase in home drinking is likely to have contributed to this. In the past, home drinking has been a relatively under researched topic, and there is now a need to monitor it more going forward to find out whether these home drinking habits picked up by people in 2020 become a new norm within peoples’ drinking behaviour. ”
The study, ‘The impact of changes in COVID-19 lockdown restrictions on alcohol consumption and drinking occasion characteristics in Scotland and England in 2020: an interrupted time-series analysis’ is published in Addiction. The work is funded by The Economic and Social Research Council. The Medical Research Council and the Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office.
The University of Sheffield
The University of Sheffield is one of the world’s top 100 universities, renowned for the excellence, impact and distinctiveness of its research-led learning and teaching.
As a member of the UK’s prestigious Russell Group, almost 30,000 of the brightest students from over 140 countries, learn alongside some of the best academics from across the globe.
Sheffield’s outstanding performance for excellent teaching and research is consistently confirmed by international independent assessments. Renowned for its student experience, Sheffield’s Students’ Union is regularly voted as the best in the UK.
The University’s life enhancing research, innovation and education not only transforms the lives of its graduates, but shapes the world we live in. In the most recent UK Research Excellence Framework, 86 percent of Sheffield’s research was assessed as world-leading or internationally excellent.
With six Nobel Prize winners among its former staff and students, Sheffield has a proud history of discovery, innovation and social change. In 1930, it pioneered the very first medical use of penicillin, while more recently researchers developed a lifesaving drug for the treatment of ovarian and breast cancer.
Today, it’s pioneering research into sustainable farming to safeguard the world’s food supply, recreating the interiors of the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear reactors to aid the clean-up process, and working with the world’s biggest social media companies to protect vulnerable users from harmful content.
Focussed on equipping students for life after Sheffield, the outstanding research-led teaching is empowering the next generation of global citizens.
ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE
Bleeding obvious doesn’t cover it.
The rise in drug overdoses is concerning also.
I’ve been a recreational user of pretty much everything but horse and acid. My booze is up, but like the article says, I always indulge after 4pm, my “quitting time” for work. Weed is down overall, not even smoking it every day. Rock has become daily, it used to be quarterly just a couple of years ago. I figure now may be the last chance to really do proper rock binge. I expect Canada’s inflation to skyrocket, and I have nothing else to spend my wages on, because I can’t even take my missus or granddaughter to dinner since I’m unclean. I figure that burning it in a pipe is a fun way to use it under the current circumstances, I fear that dollars may be worthless before we realize. (And I am starting to purchase silver with the salary I don’t burn otherwise. Making trillions of $ out of thin air will have consequences, I hope the Canadian dollar survives in some form. But I’m not depending on it.)
Given the cost of a pint in a pub or a few shots of Glenfiddich vs buying a sixer at the store or a 750ml bottle respectively, it is far cheaper to drink at home so drinking more is affordable
So too the ‘massive’ rise in women gambling online. Shut down the bingo halls and that’s precisely what you would expect to happen, but to these university educated half wits, it’s a revelation. I want some of my taxes back…..
The incidence of scholars and intellectuals who discover something that ordinary people have known for centuries, is astonishing.
Dairy maids were renowned for their fresh complexions for decades before an academic asked ‘why’? and was told, ‘we get the cow pox, and when you have had the cow pox, you don’t get the small pox, Sir! <fx> curtsey</fx>
Vaccination, comes from the Latin Vacca, a Cow…
And when the dairy maids wanted time off, they were allowed to spend a couple of weeks in the cow pasture, hence the word for vaccation.
Just kidding, good comment. I never was that good at spellin.
Excuse me, sir, but do you serve butter and jam with your puns????
Thank you, your comment deserves a toast. Cheers.
Studies like this are prevalent because the majority of universities foster being a half wit. Most universities are run by half wits and funded by half wit government programs.
I cringe whenever I hear a politician or academia denizen talk about common sense because they invariably have only a fleeting acquaintance with the concept.
But surprisingly virtually NO covid deaths at home.
They all seem to occur in hospitals and other care facilities like nursing homes.
The impact of mental health, family violence, physical abuse issues due to lockdown are immeasurable and will not be known, if at all, for decades.
This impacts people and families in Australia and New Zealand too. I am “forced” to work from home (WFH) due to restrictions and lockdowns. Though WFH suits my needs at the moment.
While not dismissing the mental health aspect it is the effect on business that WFH culture has brought on that I am also interested in.
Many industries have embraced WFH, but what are the impacts? My current Day Job encourages and occasionally enforces WHF and blows smoke up their own ego at how successful it is.
However how productive are we actually being? In my role I am more or less in the later half of a lot of workflow processes. Before I put my greasy mitts all over a task it has to go through a lot of approval processes (aka – meetings) both internally and with our immediate customer.
Currently, while I have things to do, I am not remotely ‘flat out’ because nearly all of the big ‘Hundred Hours of Work this month on this task’ jobs have been shifted to the right.
Is this because of Working From Home culture? Maybe. I don’t have hard proof. But if you are in a situation where you once could swing past someone’s desk for 5 minutes to resolve a problem and now you have to try and track them down on Skype are you honestly attempting to claim that both methods take the same amount of time and effort?
Remember it doesn’t have to be much to ruin a system. If getting things done now takes 10% longer under a WFH culture than you are less effective as a business who still manages to do Work from Work.
I don’t have proof, just gut feels and observations, but we may be in a situation where many of our ‘office’ based industries could be living on the edge if this continues for much longer.
I really don’t like WFH policy, but it does save me a lot of money, and time. And tax, i write off lots of stuff now and I get bumper returns. I am OK with WFH policy for now as face nappies are mandatory at the workplace right now, and I ain’t doing that.
I deliberately wear a “face covering” that is clearly not new/fresh and has been worn for at least a year in protest.
Ha ha ha ha ha! I might be in a hotel room in Kauai but I’m enjoying some Sailor Jerry 92 proof rum.
“I’m enjoying some Sailor – Jerry – 92 proof rum.”
I am not sure I wish to hear about your odd activities sir!
Will there ever be a fair cost/benefit analysis of interventions implemented in the name of covid? Certainly not in the legacy media or from government controlled research.
Frankly it is almost impossible. Even with the conventional interpretation of Time, it is not possible to re-run history and change decisions to know what would have happened, if different choices had been made, except in the most limited and special cases (air crash investigation springs to mind). So you could never cost the ‘we did it different’ scenario.
Unfortunately for some reasons it is widely believed that in fact one can, so ‘this would never have happened if we had elected Hilary’ etc. is as widely heard as the whining of run bearings on pickup trucks…
The problem is the teaching of knowledge, as fact, rather than as reliable theory. Or the teaching of philosophy and critical thinking.
Climate change science – so called – could never have taken root in a population conversant with Hume’s ‘Problem of Induction’ . Because climate change hypotheses are, in the end, inductive hypotheses and so subject to Hume’s conclusion that no inductive knowledge can be proved to be true. Science is not a collection of truths, it is a collection of hypotheses – models – that work. And if – as in the case of climate models, they don’t work, claiming them as truth is simply something that should have been laughed out of court years ago.
Leo: “[…] it is not possible to re-run history and change decisions to know what would have happened, if different choices had been made, […]”
Leo, there were some countries that did not take any lockdown measures, so comparisons of outcomes can be made between countries that locked down and those that did not.
There are some places that switched to using Ivermectin, e.g., Japan, and some who banned its use. We can compare results from those countries.
But it certainly is true that you can’t give someone cyanide and then go back and see what happens when you don’t give them cyanide. What’s done is done. But we can get useful information by comparing the results of people who are given cyanide to those that are not given it.
Not a criticism of your comment, because it’s true, you can’t cross the same river twice. But there are ways to get useful information.
If you were digging into your garden during lockdown and installing heat pump maybe you should have been better informed.
“Homes risk energy rating downgrade if they install a heat pump
Energy scores for homes are to be overhauled by the government, amid fears that under the current system installing a heat pump could cut the value of properties.
It comes after the Daily Telegraph disclosed that several Cabinet ministers were already concerned about the speed of the transition to net zero and cost to households, amid record energy price increases and the biggest cost of living squeeze in a generation.”
And did you see another news item that went past recently…
60% of people in the UK would not vote for any candidate that supported the introduction of electric cars
The 40% who would support it are copper thieves. 😉
There was also a warning that collision with an electric car (even if there is no fire) results in significantly more damage since EVs are much heavier than the equivalent IC vehicle.
There isn’t much scope for crumple zones on an EV
Actually there’s much more room for crumple zones on an EV – no engine up front. The batteries are carried down low not up front or in the rear.
That makes no sense at all. Electric cars have been introduced for 120 years now. There’s just more of them now
I think Peta inferred the introduction of electric cars along with the banning of ICE cars. I think you knew what she meant as well, even though you pretended otherwise for comedic effect.
iirc DR CHALLENGER DROVE UP TO THE ROYAL SOCIETY AT THE OUTSET OF “THE LOST WORLD” IN HIS ELECTRIC BROUGHAM.
Damn the caps lock key!
Someone paid to have this study conducted?
In other news, Western governments commission 10-year multi-billion study to investigate reasons for increased use of sofas after chairs are banned…..
If they find results unfavorable to their agenda, they are going to sit on them.
…and if there was a hole in the road, they would look into it.
Truly, I am waiting for someone to come up with a study on the effects of outgassing from fresh cow patties in the pasture, and how that contributes to Glow Bull warraming. 🙂
I think it was already done – by a man outstanding in his field.
“The University of Sheffield is one of the world’s top 100 universities, renowned for the excellence, impact and distinctiveness of its research-led learning and teaching.”
Who wrote that complete nonsense?
To answer your question: Someone employed by the University of Sheffield, of course.
God knows. My sister did a modern languages degree there and emerged a witless leftard that believes in climate change, vegetables, and the danger posed by nuclear radiation one ten thousandth of the amount she gets every time she goes to the dentists. She lives in rural Germany, and looks out across the fields at stationary windmills, has solar panels on her roof, and a Tesla battery in the garage and an electric car… She votes Green and absolutely supports everything the EU does. World government would be ideal, provided of course it was run by Germans.
I’ll have a pint – and a whisky chaser…
One burbon, one scotch, one beer…
George also preferred to drink alone.
Yeah, he even liked to be by himself when he drank alone.
So no extra alcohol was consumed;
But not being allowed in pubs and not having to commute in the morning meant:
1) People drank where they were allowed to be (at home).
2) People drank later in the day as they could get up later.
The surprising thing is that lockdowns weren’t that bad for mental health and people weren’t driven to drink.
I think that lockdowns were incredibly bad for mental health.
Yes. It’s surprising that the observations don’t match the theory. I would have made the same mistake as you.
It’s worth remembering that the population was bombarded incessantly by messages of climatological doom in addition to the whipped up hysteria around Wuflu.
Maybe a survey of peoples viewing habits under lockdown might shed some light on that, but then the programming is utter garbage, anyway.
No child should have been imprisoned – especially in a tower block or other social housing. The damage the lockdowns have done won’t be seen for a time yet. But it will manifest itself.
It is the small changes that I eventually pick up that start to scare me.
Here in my part of the world the ‘mask’ debate was fairly civil and I managed to go about 18 months without even owning one.
Come mid 2021 things changed a bit (a requirement to wear them within shops and other public friendly type establishments). Some start of 2022 my Day Job suddenly decided we all had to wear masks, cause, Corporate Leadership Group needed to show they were being pro-active about employee safety.
(also a Jab register)
So, not actually being the hill I was willing to die on, I skirmished for as long as possible and at least attempt to have a mask attached to my head at most times.
What rapidly started happening was I would start to have conversations with the more pro mask elements of my Day Job without even turning around to face them. If they can’t see my face they can’t audit the quality of the fit.
I also picked up that when I go into shops I avoid eye contact when I go to the checkout and make nearly the entire transaction without looking at them.
This cannot be healthy.
“This cannot be healthy.”
Craig, it’s not. Nor is it intended to be. You can see from the behavior of the “elites” who very publicly flaunt mask mandates (the recent photo of Abrams with school children, Newsom at the game last week, etc.) that those imposing the mandates don’t feel a need to adhere to them.
It’s not about health. It’s about control. That sort of behavior proves it.
not drinking more doesn’t mean not having more mental health problems
Fair point. But drinking more was being studied as it was expected to be one of the signs of mental heath problems.
Non pharmacological interventions reduced covid cases and deaths to near zero.
Current vaccines give an immunity that wanes quickly, so cases and deaths go on with occasional enhanced waves.
Immunity gained from previous infection offers no permanent immunity, so herd immunity is
not within reach.
Perhaps better treatments are the answer.
“ Perhaps better treatments are the answer.”
Cheap drugs such as HCQ and Ivermectin don’t make a large enough profit
” Non pharmacological interventions reduced covid cases and deaths to near zero. ”
Not true: the reduction to near zero is the outcome of a normal epidemic when it becomes endemic, with no interventions besides the normal therapeutics (in case of flus, they are mainly directed to lower the intensity of symptoms while the patient immune system prepares to react to the new enemy).
The problem was that WHO stated that there was NO TREATMENT available and the only help would e paracetamol. If covid would have been treatedd as a common flu, it would not have been such a disaster.
The “NO TREATMENT” statement was one of the reasons which allowed the vaccines to be released under an EUA. The EUA absolved manufacturers of any liability. This has allowed some insurance companies to refuse payouts for those who have been jabbed, had comorbidities and died. They treat these deaths as suicides…
Yes. And also the fight against the investigation of the usefulness of EARLY treatments that can reduce the risk (of hospitalization and of death) and improve the conditions of life of the diseased. Also, eventually reducing long-term consequences of the disease. A lot ( a LOT) of medical practices that were ignored, suspended, prohibited, demonized, although in a “normal” (eg. swine flu;…) situation, without the creation of terror, the GPs would have prescribed.
Try this: “Lockdown measures linked to an increase in
drinkingliving at home”
“The research team studied 41,500 adult drinkers in Scotland and more than 250,000 adult drinkers in England”
I’ve probably missed it somewhere, but how did they do this?
Probably a questionnaire.
And we all know how they work.
Before asking that, I would ask what makes someone qualify as a “drinker”.
Lockdown wasn’t a problem if you were in the right parliamentary circles. And the drinking didn’t stop, it just got more social.
“[Boris] Johnson admitted that he had attended a party billed as a “bring your own booze” gathering in Downing Street’s garden, to which around 100 people were reportedly invited, during lockdown.”
They had lots of parties and there’s hundreds of photos and selfies to prove it. Idiots, eh.
“Police are taking no further action over a photo of Keir Starmer having a beer last April. The Labour leader was pictured drinking indoors with colleagues “
I’d like to see a detailed study of what people think of Parliament. It won’t be pretty.
For me, Sheffield let the cat out of the bag. the next generation of global citizens Understood.
That would be true.
And this is surprising? How?
Really?!?!? Ya think?!?!? How about the major spike in child/teen suicides?
So, a drunk walked into a bar, and the barkeeper said “Hey, watch where you’re going, bub”.
Then there’s the old standby “Work is the curse of the drinking class”.
What shall we do, really, with the drunken sailor? Society is rife with ambivalence about alcohol. We know that it is essentially a poison, which at first rewards, but later punishes. We can’t ban it, because we know that backfires. So, we have to live with it somehow. In social settings, it perhaps has its benefits. But drinking for that buzz, which is primarily what home drinking is, isn’t good, and can lead to alcohol dependence and abuse.
Pretty much what the Bible says. Normal alcohol use is seen as – normal.
But you have to be careful because wine is a mocker and strong drink ids a brawler.
There are some who end up abusing alcohol, who must abstain.
But for the most part, many of us can handle alcohol.
We can handle it better when it is consumed in normal social circumstances, such as the nuular family.
People with obligations such as work or having a family to raise will have to be moderate. People with family and friends judging your behavior will provide social pressure to not act stupid.
In our modern world, we have decided that there is no God, so we can ignore the Bible. We can ignore the concepts of work and family. It used to be unusual for people, generally, to just decide to not seek marriage or kids until their 30s. This leaves many of us with a huge span of years to drink irresponsibly, with little consequences from work or family.
Using what data – please don’t say they went out and asked people.
As the story says, people claim to be drinking the same amount but only later in the day.
In a way it makes sense. We all know that ‘multitasking’ is a Faerie Storie just like Ozone Holes and Trapped Heat.
Combine that with what the BBC said = Folks watched an extra hour of TV every day during lockdown
There’s something I find really amazing in there but cannot quite put a finger on…..
No matter, back on topic:
Alcohol creates liars and The Very First Thing they lie about is: How much they drink
It’s well established that doctors, by asking their patients, will tell you that: People drink x amount
While HMRC (the collector of UK tax & duty revenue) tell you, simply from the amount of tax they amass, that people are drinking 2x
Even before smuggling, what’s left of ‘Duty Free’ and insane binges while on holiday.
It’s very simple what’s going on here, the researchers at Sheffield want to compare themselves with everybody else.
They will lie straight at you if you ask them as much.
But especially their assertion that: More research is needed is the biggest porkie of the lot.
How long has alcohol been around? How many people consume the stuff?
As I’ve raved, around here and elsewhere, The Only research anyone ever needs to do on alcohol is to simply & completely stop drinking the stuff.
You really will enter a whole new world. Mentally especially, you will learn patience, mental stamina, true scepticism and, be able to understand Monty Python.
But also within your own physical well-being – it will dawn what a Complete Poison that stuff is
But, here’s the catch, you still (have to) exist in the world you left behind
You will notice it is populated almost entirely by Zombies.
Almost entirely. Other non-drinkers stand out like supernovae in an otherwise very grey sky.
Strangely also, (other) people who are on proper, ultra low carbohydrate ketogenic diets. But with your new found mental dexterity, you will work it out instantly.
There are no links to click.
No websites or twitter feeds/links/pages. Not even Google or Facebork can help.
There are no authorities for you to ask – apart from, Your very own self.##
## With the very real exception of your ex-wife – who in all probability accused you of Unreasonable Behaviour as the reason for asking for & getting her divorce.
Please tell me you’ve figured what that behaviour was…..
But Peta, people can stop “anytime they want”. They just don’t want to enough.
Peta, while I agree with many of your sentiments, one doesn’t have to stop drinking to notice that the world is mostly populated with mentally deficient zombies.
Some of us have found that it’s a good reason to start.
Using what data – please don’t say they went out and asked people.
As the story says, people claim to be drinking the same amount but only later in the day.
It sure looks like that’s what they did.
What about comparing sales? Not in dollars/pounds/euros but by quantity and type? Seems to me THAT would be a better comparison.
All the records are there. Tax levied per type of sale. Bottle, keg, can.
What does anybody expect? Did people stop eating because they couldn’t eat out? Why would drinking be different?
I sure am glad I live in a place that had no lockdowns or mandates.
About the only person I trust to be honest about the wuflu is John Campbell. He digs up research and data and presents them without any kind of spin as far as I can tell.
He presents this paper from Johns Hopkins about the ineffectiveness of vaccines. He makes a couple of arguments about why the paper might be wrong. Even so, he links to the paper and invites us to read it and make up our own minds.
I’m struggling to find a link to climate in this article…
Is this really the world’s most viewed website on climate change and global warming?
yes it is Griff, but it also benefits from polymaths such as yourself coming here to share your unbounded wisdom about all things “sciency” (that is, the comedy skits that The Guardian presents as knowledge)
Really? This schist, again! You, griff, should read more and write less.
WUWT has only ever been partly about weather and climate:
“About Watts Up With That? News and commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news by Anthony Watts”
Hey griff, you’ve been around here long enough: why don’t you go check out the “About” page? NOBODY ever claimed WUWT was ONLY about climate.
I know Griff, sometimes the association is as plain as the nose on your face but you just refuse to see it and claim it doesn’t exist.
Let me ‘splain it…
Covid has developed into lockdowns resulting in closed bars/pubs and drinkers practicing anti-Social drinking because they can’t socialize. Covid = Lockdowns.
Now for the association…
Many greens are proposing that the Covid Lockdowns need to become Climate Lockdowns to control CO2 emissions (which, by the way, increased during Covid Lockdowns)
Covid Lockdowns = Climate Lockdowns = more home drinking and potentially more Anti-Social behavior
If you ever have any other questions about how posts are related to climate just ask me and I’ll ‘Splain it to you
They don’t know, but they recommend study forever to protect their paychecks.
The amount of drinking hasn’t changed, just the location and now drinking involves “solitary drinking”.
Which is not a surprise given that government is preventing social groups and interactions.
And 20% of workday absences occur on Fridays.
Where else can you drink when you are locked down?
A meaningless statistic.
In the U.S., we don’t need to do surveys on consumption–we can look at the tax data and see the run up on all of these tax types like tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, narcotics, lottery, etc. A lot of the stimulus payments went in those directions with federal funds.
At home drinking is a natural adaptive adjustment that increases longevity and reduces trauma. Specifically alcohol related traffic accidents decline dramatically, assaults related to entering the wrong domicile nearly disappear, alcohol related unwanted pregnancies decline as expected due to the natural tendency for heavy consumers to live alone, trauma from conflict in bars is eliminated, and falls often result in collision with soft padded 1960’s furniture rather than pavement. Nature’s way of preserving those with a real purpose in life.
Another study showed no increase. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10469107/Brits-DIDNT-consume-alcohol-lockdown-major-study-finds.html
A related study found lockdown measures led to a decrease in drinking outside the home.