3 ms·
The actual number of cases isn't given, only a minimum: > Dr. Pirzada is one of the many physicians across the country treating patients — now totaling more th
by kerkeslager 7y ago
The actual number of cases isn't given, only a minimum:
> Dr. Pirzada is one of the many physicians across the country treating patients — now totaling more than 215 — with mysterious and life-threatening vaping-related illnesses this summer.
215 is a much smaller number than I would have guessed based on that headline, and it's also an oddly-specific number to just say, "More than" with. This stinks of sensationalism. Shame on you, New York Times, you're better than this.
Why does it matter? Vaping only has to be a tiny bit healthier than smoking and prevent a small percentage of people from smoking, to save "more than 215" lives. The research into the effects of vaping doesn't seem to be conclusive, so I don't know yet whether vaping is safer, or by how much. But when research does come to some concusions, I want public policy with regard to vaping to be written based on facts viewed in context, not sensationalized fearmongering.
- TylerE 7y agoDon't think it's a weird number. i would certainly hope they know _exactly_ how many cases have actually presented - plus there will always be some more that never see a doctor's office.
- kerkeslager 7y agoIf they know _exactly_ how many cases have presented, then they could have said _exactly_ how many cases have presented, instead of saying "more than 215". And this is the number of cases, it's the number of patients. You're not a patient until you see a doctor, so that doesn't include people who don't see a doctor. There are a lot of numbers that are more than 215, but with such a specific number, it makes me think that the number is something like 217, and they just said "more than 215" to sensationalize it. And to be clear, 215 cases in a nation the size of the US is not "becoming an epidemic".