7 ms·

I remember seeing similar articles. While I don't understand the science behind these findings, my understanding is that smokers are less likely to catch COVID,

• numpad0 6y ago
  Makes me wonder if tobacco in eras of tuberculosis improved chances of individual survival...
  • sudosysgen 6y ago
    Almost certainly not. Nicotine is known to downregulate the recptor that SARS-CoV-2 uses for entry.
• metrokoi 6y ago
  Smoking decreases the amount of certain enzymes that COVID binds to in order to infect the lungs. Less enzymes means a lesser chance of catching the virus, but if caught, the person will likely have a more severe case due to the decreased lung capability.[0][1] The figures that I have seen previously did show a very significantly decreased risk of catching COVID, and I'm surprised it hasn't been investigated far more. Edit: I had that wrong, it seems nicotine increases ACE2, but also binds with ACE2 decreasing the amount of available enzymes overall that COVID could bind to.[2] [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angiotensin-converting_enzyme_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angiotensin-converting_enzyme_... [1]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191112/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191112/ [2]https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.14943 https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.14943
• nyolfen 6y ago
  incorrect; smokers are shown to be substantially less susceptible to both catching covid and developing severe symptoms, a finding that has been demonstrated independently in (at least) france, china, and the USA: > Conclusions and relevance: Our cross sectional study in both COVID-19 out- and inpatients strongly suggests that daily smokers have a very much lower probability of developing symptomatic or severe SARS-CoV-2 infection as compared to the general population. > Very recently, the US Center of Disease Control reported an analysis of current smoker rate among US COVID-19 patients which was found to be 1.3% for the whole population of COVID-19 patients, 1% for outpatients, 2% for patients, not hospitalized in an ICU, and 1% in intensive care unit (ICU)-admitted patients https://www.qeios.com/read/WPP19W.3 https://www.qeios.com/read/WPP19W.3 in all of the mentioned countries, only about 1% of ICU cases are smokers. this has (perhaps unsurprisingly) not been widely reported.
  • titzer 6y ago
    Maybe they just drop dead immediately in their homes? /s Seriously though, it's baffling because smoking causes so many underlying health problems that don't go well with COVID. Also, smokers have a depressed immune system compared to nonsmokers, so it would seem to suggest they'd be less likely to fight off an infection like this.
    • zaarn 6y ago
      In a lot of cases, COVID-19 symptoms involve an immunesystem overreaction, which causes massive inflammation and organ damage all over, so having a depressed immunesystem might help there.
  • antognini 6y ago
    Both SARS-Cov-2 and nicotine bind to the ACE2 receptor. One hypothesis is that because SARS-Cov-2 has to compete with nicotine for the receptor it ends up being less effective. Another hypothesis is that smokers tend to do better because of nicotine's effect of reducing inflammation.
  • hwillis 6y ago
    Seems more likely to me they're just lying about being smokers- 60% admit to being former smokers. Inpatient hospitalizations also almost all suffer from serious comorbid conditions like hypertension or diabetes, which probably causes many to smoke less. Less so with the outpatients (<20%) but I would not be surprised if it was because unhealthy people getting sick, and those unhealthy people don't smoke because it would be bad for them.
    • Supermancho 6y ago
      > Seems more likely to me they're just lying about being smokers Being a smoker has been a standard part of your medical history for a long time now for obvious reasons. There's no reason to think there is a coordinated strategy for lying about smoking in the context of a pandemic (much less revising patient medical histories, which would be the medical service industry lying). 50%+ lying about smoking in the face of potential (or actual) respiratory failure is laughable.
• xwolfi 6y ago
  They are just as likely to catch it, but the symtoms are less severe in more cases than non-smoker. They give nicotine patches to nurses in pilot studies, how ironical :D
  • jnkl 6y ago
    Do you have source?
• Gibbon1 6y ago
  I saw an analysis from a epidemiologist who said the result is due to naive over adjustment for confounding variables. Specifically if you treat related confounding variables as if they are independent you end up with garbage. They also said elsewhere that a lot of researchers from outside epidemiology are running really bad studies and publishing papers.
  • himinlomax 6y ago
    He's almost certainly wrong, the effect size on this one is astounding. See for example this: https://www.qeios.com/read/WPP19W.3 https://www.qeios.com/read/WPP19W.3 Even with conservative assumptions, smokers in this French study were 4 to 5 times less likely to be infected. Keep in mind that drugs being tested are considered good when they reduce mortality by 10%. We're talking 75% reduction in infection rate here, and no increased mortality in those who are infected. It's really really hard to imagine what sort of confounding factor that could be at play here that would make the effect insignificant.
    • sharken 6y ago
      If the facts speak against what an epidemiologist says, then perhaps we should also use critical thinking there.