3 ms·

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 "stan

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.
- buescher 5y ago
  They give two methodological nitpicks, which is not really "engaging the data directly". One is basically, there are other paradoxical results in with this paradoxical result, so obviously this paradoxical result can't be true! Really, even in the COPD patients they saw the same result, which means it's obviously wrong. Right? Right? The other one is fair enough: self-reporting has its limits. But what are they really? Let's do the thought experiment: if the converse result were being reported, i.e. non-smokers were having worse outcomes than expected, but growing evidence showed smokers developed serious cases more frequently than non-smokers, would that article be any different? I think you could just write it paint-by-numbers. Also, kids, don't start smoking no matter how cool you think it is, mkay?

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.

buescher 5y ago
They give two methodological nitpicks, which is not really "engaging the data directly". One is basically, there are other paradoxical results in with this paradoxical result, so obviously this paradoxical result can't be true! Really, even in the COPD patients they saw the same result, which means it's obviously wrong. Right? Right? The other one is fair enough: self-reporting has its limits. But what are they really? Let's do the thought experiment: if the converse result were being reported, i.e. non-smokers were having worse outcomes than expected, but growing evidence showed smokers developed serious cases more frequently than non-smokers, would that article be any different? I think you could just write it paint-by-numbers. Also, kids, don't start smoking no matter how cool you think it is, mkay?