3 ms·

Ironically, given that the data on tobacco use and COVID gives the medical establishment fits, now may not be the best time to quit. Not an argument for starti

Ironically, given that the data on tobacco use and COVID gives the medical establishment fits, now may not be the best time to quit. Not an argument for starting, of course.

flerchin 5y ago
What is this? You think smokers beat the 'rona?
- buescher 5y ago
  Oh yes, smoking is very bad and only very bad people do it and they will die and you will live forever if you don't smoke. Is it a happy story now? Please don't accuse me of "thinking" anything I didn't say. In the meantime, there are clinical trials going on now for the use of nicotine to prevent COVID: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04583410 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04583410
  - criddell 5y ago
    There are lots of reasons to like nicotine, there are no good reasons to get it through smoking.
  - _kst_ 5y ago
    "Oh yes, smoking is very bad and only very bad people do it and they will die and you will live forever if you don't smoke. Is it a happy story now? Please don't accuse me of "thinking" anything I didn't say." Nobody accused you of any of that.
    - buescher 5y ago
      I didn't say smokers "beat the 'rona" and I'm not arguing for the virtue of smoking. I also do think the moral tone in "what is this?" is childish and inappropriately peckish.
- 1986 5y ago
  There were some studies that observed a low prevalence of current smokers hospitalized for Covid, compared to smoking rates in the population, and hypothesized that nicotine might be having a beneficial effect. On the other hand, it obviously stands to reason that having stronger lungs would be better for outcomes of a respiratory disease. I'm pretty sure there's been no definitive research findings one way or the other.
  - robbedpeter 5y ago
    It could be related to smokers spending more relative time outside, since covid-19 seemed to not do well in fresh air and sunlight (significantly faster oxidation and high susceptibility to uv.) Some newer variants seem to be surviving outdoors a little better, but we'll need months to see reliable data. It could also be related to buildup from smoking coating the lungs and reducing the available points of infection, which in not sure you want. All that black tar and crud... I'd rather get covid.
  - buescher 5y ago
    It also stands to reason that not developing a respiratory illness at all is better than having a better outcome when you do. Note that data that doesn't "stand to reason" is super interesting as science. There are a lot of such studies now; the Nature article cited above has a whole list of them. The authors' argument of "the myth" is basically "smoking is still bad because smokers have worse outcomes if they're hospitalized for COVID, also smoking is bad, mkay" which is just avoiding the point. You and they are right that it is not clear whether smokers have an overall benefit or not with regards to the whole chain of causality from contracting COVID to hospitalization to "worse outcomes"
    - handrous 5y ago
      > The authors' argument of "the myth" is basically "smoking is still bad because smokers have worse outcomes if they're hospitalized for COVID, also smoking is bad, mkay" which is just avoiding the point. The author engages the data directly, as well as broader context about smoking and infectious disease. Now, they may be lying by either commission or omission, for all I know, but the above does not accurately characterize the piece.
_kst_ 5y ago
No, that appears to be a myth. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41533-021-00223-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41533-021-00223-1 > To date, there is no strong evidence (i.e., evidence based on causal research) that smokers are protected against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Moreover, there is growing evidence that smokers have worse outcomes after contracting the virus than non-smokers.
- buescher 5y ago
  That's an example of the "fits". Lots of data, replicated across the world, but plainly it suggests something unacceptable so it is not evidence.
  - rackjack 5y ago
    Can you provide some links to the data? edit: Oh, I see the link you posted below. edit: That's a link to an ongoing clinical study, no published data yet. Can you provide some links to the data?
    - buescher 5y ago
      Read the Nature article; it cites a large number of studies and dismisses them.
      - rackjack 5y ago
        Interesting. Just intuitively I bet the cons of smoking outweigh any benefits, but now I'm curious as to the outcome of the nicotine trial. Thanks for sharing the smoking-COVID rumor, I'd never heard that one before.
- nradov 5y ago
  There was at least one study in France showing that smokers had a lower risk from COVID-19. (I'm not recommending smoking.) https://academic.oup.com/ntr/article/23/8/1398/6073671 https://academic.oup.com/ntr/article/23/8/1398/6073671

Ironically, given that the data on tobacco use and COVID gives the medical establishment fits, now may not be the best time to quit. Not an argument for starting, of course.

flerchin 5y ago

What is this? You think smokers beat the 'rona?

buescher 5y ago
Oh yes, smoking is very bad and only very bad people do it and they will die and you will live forever if you don't smoke. Is it a happy story now? Please don't accuse me of "thinking" anything I didn't say. In the meantime, there are clinical trials going on now for the use of nicotine to prevent COVID: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04583410 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04583410
- criddell 5y ago
  There are lots of reasons to like nicotine, there are no good reasons to get it through smoking.
- _kst_ 5y ago
  "Oh yes, smoking is very bad and only very bad people do it and they will die and you will live forever if you don't smoke. Is it a happy story now? Please don't accuse me of "thinking" anything I didn't say." Nobody accused you of any of that.
  - buescher 5y ago
    I didn't say smokers "beat the 'rona" and I'm not arguing for the virtue of smoking. I also do think the moral tone in "what is this?" is childish and inappropriately peckish.
1986 5y ago
There were some studies that observed a low prevalence of current smokers hospitalized for Covid, compared to smoking rates in the population, and hypothesized that nicotine might be having a beneficial effect. On the other hand, it obviously stands to reason that having stronger lungs would be better for outcomes of a respiratory disease. I'm pretty sure there's been no definitive research findings one way or the other.
- robbedpeter 5y ago
  It could be related to smokers spending more relative time outside, since covid-19 seemed to not do well in fresh air and sunlight (significantly faster oxidation and high susceptibility to uv.) Some newer variants seem to be surviving outdoors a little better, but we'll need months to see reliable data. It could also be related to buildup from smoking coating the lungs and reducing the available points of infection, which in not sure you want. All that black tar and crud... I'd rather get covid.
- buescher 5y ago
  It also stands to reason that not developing a respiratory illness at all is better than having a better outcome when you do. Note that data that doesn't "stand to reason" is super interesting as science. There are a lot of such studies now; the Nature article cited above has a whole list of them. The authors' argument of "the myth" is basically "smoking is still bad because smokers have worse outcomes if they're hospitalized for COVID, also smoking is bad, mkay" which is just avoiding the point. You and they are right that it is not clear whether smokers have an overall benefit or not with regards to the whole chain of causality from contracting COVID to hospitalization to "worse outcomes"
  - handrous 5y ago
    > The authors' argument of "the myth" is basically "smoking is still bad because smokers have worse outcomes if they're hospitalized for COVID, also smoking is bad, mkay" which is just avoiding the point. The author engages the data directly, as well as broader context about smoking and infectious disease. Now, they may be lying by either commission or omission, for all I know, but the above does not accurately characterize the piece.

_kst_ 5y ago

No, that appears to be a myth. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41533-021-00223-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41533-021-00223-1 > To date, there is no strong evidence (i.e., evidence based on causal research) that smokers are protected against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Moreover, there is growing evidence that smokers have worse outcomes after contracting the virus than non-smokers.

buescher 5y ago
That's an example of the "fits". Lots of data, replicated across the world, but plainly it suggests something unacceptable so it is not evidence.
- rackjack 5y ago
  Can you provide some links to the data? edit: Oh, I see the link you posted below. edit: That's a link to an ongoing clinical study, no published data yet. Can you provide some links to the data?
  - buescher 5y ago
    Read the Nature article; it cites a large number of studies and dismisses them.
    - rackjack 5y ago
      Interesting. Just intuitively I bet the cons of smoking outweigh any benefits, but now I'm curious as to the outcome of the nicotine trial. Thanks for sharing the smoking-COVID rumor, I'd never heard that one before.
nradov 5y ago
There was at least one study in France showing that smokers had a lower risk from COVID-19. (I'm not recommending smoking.) https://academic.oup.com/ntr/article/23/8/1398/6073671 https://academic.oup.com/ntr/article/23/8/1398/6073671