7 ms·

The CDC has been unfortunately hopelessly politicized. It happened long before the pandemic. OTOH, I would make the differentiating point that air travel has p

The CDC has been unfortunately hopelessly politicized. It happened long before the pandemic. OTOH, I would make the differentiating point that air travel has positive benefits to society and costs and one has to weigh those against each other. You can’t make the blanket statement “earth would be better off if air travel went away completely.” It’s hard to find any benefit to smoking, first hand or second, so it’s easy enough to just shit on it. The ROI on whatever ills aviation may have is a topic of discussion, there’s 0 ROI on smoking.

artificialLimbs 5y ago
>> It's hard to find any benefit to smoking... Ritualistically, as an exercise in getting out of one's 'normal' consciousness, it can present useful information for self study. In habitual form, it is of course very destructive.
- groby_b 5y ago
  So the "getting out of consciousness" that is the relaxation experience many "habitual" smokers have is worthless, while changing your state for ritualistic purposes is helpful? Both are very tiny self-reported effects that are close to non-observable for outsiders. Why would one outweigh the other, if you allow self-reported epsilon effects at all?
  - artificialLimbs 5y ago
    >> getting out of consciousness You mean sleep (as in, night time bed activity)? I'm not talking about sleep. I am discussing getting out of normative modes of being but not going to sleep. >> that is the relaxation experience This is not the only experience resulting from tobacco use. There are more subtle effects as well. >> worthless I haven't declared a value judgment against the habit. I am saying it is destructive to the body. Do you believe that to not be a fact? >> helpful Again, I'm not presenting value judgments here. I am saying it can present useful information. It sounds to me like you have taken offense somewhere for some reason. I am not putting weight on one or the other. *edit: clarity
TameAntelope 5y ago
This isn't politics, it's safety. I accept the argument that the CDC has become overly innumerate in how to live a healthy life, but it's not a liberal or conservative idea to be cautious.
- area51org 5y ago
  There is such a thing as being unnecessarily and overly cautious, however. This sure seems like a good example of that.
  - hcurtiss 5y ago
    Exactly. Precaution comes at a price. The question is whether the benefits of the precaution outweigh the costs. And that is an answer science cannot, and should not, answer. These days, it seems, many scientists are desperate to cloak their policy preferences in "science." That is precisely why there is presently so much distrust of scientists.
    - psyklic 5y ago
      I never understood distrust, because scientists base their work on research that is extensively cited. Making conclusions that are not supported by evidence, e.g. "desperately cloaking" policy preferences, could jeopardize one's scientific career. Many people seem to unrealistically demand scientific recommendations to be "guarantees." However, scientific conclusions are very precisely made best guesses, built on humanity's knowledge.
      - klabb3 5y ago
        > I never understood distrust, because scientists base their work on research that is extensively cited. It's good that the supply chain of science is traceable, but it doesn't guarantee truth by any means. Their are many non-scientific human endeavors that have traceability, take software development for instance. I think the distrust comes from many fields having fairly obvious political trends, in particular social sciences. Another source of distrust is overextrapolation of science by authorities. For instance, science might say that certain drugs are harmful if abused, and politicians may use that to claim the war on drugs is based on science, which obviously is not true. Lastly, some fields struggle producing consistent and falsifiable results, such as economics and psychology.
tomp 5y ago
As we've seen in the past 2 years, there's no real positive benefit to society to frequent business flying (at pre-pandemic levels). Like smoking, we don't need to completely ban air travel. The equivalent would be severely limiting it (for example, prohibiting business flying).
- ccakes 5y ago
  > The equivalent would be severely limiting it (for example, prohibiting business flying). People fly to go on holiday and experience cultures other than their own which is something we should be encouraging rather than discouraging. I strongly agree with reducing needless business travel but if doing so also limited vacation travel I think it'd be a net negative.
  - dleslie 5y ago
    We should be discouraging all air travel. All of it.
    - xyzzyz 5y ago
      No, we shouldn’t. Instead, we should work on ensuring that as many people are able to enjoy new opportunities it provides if they do desire as possible. Everyone should be able to enjoy life.
      - wolverine876 5y ago
        Climate impact is significant. That's going to interfere with generations enjoying their lives.
        xyzzyz 5y ago
        We should then work on enabling people to fly with no climate impact. For example, using zero emissions energy to synthesize jet fuel. The goal should be to enable people, not to block them.
zdragnar 5y ago
Nicotine (especially when consumed via smoking) has some negative side effects, but is also a neurotrophic and can be quite beneficial. Addiction and blood pressure are really the only downsides if you were to consume it in the form of, say, gum (and boy does the addiction suck).
- drekk 5y ago
  The addiction is one of the most difficult to quit. With repeated use the nice feelings stop as well. There's no benefit to it, you're hijacking some neural circuitry until it hijacks your life
- krrrh 5y ago
  Regular consumption of nicotine also reduces Alzheimer's risk (and probably Parkinson's). This has been known for a long time. Few things are absolute. 1991: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC1670208/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC1670208/ > The risk of Alzheimer's disease decreased with increasing daily number of cigarettes smoked before onset of disease (relative risk 0.3 in those smoking greater than 21/day v 1 in non-smokers). In six families in which the disease was apparently inherited as an autosomal dominant disorder, the mean age of onset was 4.17 years later in smoking patients than in non-smoking patients from the same family (p = 0.03). There is also ongoing research on this topic funded by the US government. https://www.alzheimers.gov/clinical-trials/memory-improvement-through-nicotine-dosing-mind https://www.alzheimers.gov/clinical-trials/memory-improvemen...
  - kortex 5y ago
    Nit: that study is cigarettes. There is more to tobacco than nicotine, such as harmala alkaloids and miscellaneous MAOIs. Either way, that's super interesting.
avar 5y ago
> It’s hard to find any benefit to smoking, first hand or second. The same is true about recreational travel. People expose themselves to high levels of radiation and travel risk purely for recreational purposes. Smokers inhale carcinogenic substances for recreational purposes.
- kaba0 5y ago
  Is the risk for the two even remotely in the same ballpark?
  - pas 5y ago
    No, but the problem is that a scientifically informed (evidence based) public health site communicating risks should be consistent and shouldn't use inconsistent absolutist language.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - pvarangot 5y ago
    Well, it depends on how much you smoke and how much you travel. Thing is if I smoke even one cigarette like as a digestive after a big dinner once every four months I have to pay 600 dollars of extra health insurance per year because of how all this bullshit messaging about how nicotine works. And of course it's to protect something like only 35% of the human population that will get addicted to it. I stopped smoking for months or years many times and I never ever had any side effect except maybe I'm a bit tired the first days. I don't even put up extra weight or anything like that. I feel like an adult baby being treated like I need financial punishment to help me be a healthy person.
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      > Well, it depends on how much you smoke and how much you travel. I find it hard to believe that smoking could be less dangerous than flying even for people who work as airline pilots or flight attendants.
hidudeurcool 5y ago
benefit of smoking is the buzz and social enhancement. it is not useless.
wolverine876 5y ago
> The CDC has been unfortunately hopelessly politicized. These accusations are a common way to tear down democratic institutions, handing power to corporations and powerful individuals. Do you have evidence of it? I've seen none, other than some things attempted by political appointees during the Trump administration.
- mattmaroon 5y ago
  Yes. If you want a really good explanation of how it happened and the effects it’s practically the subject of The Premonition by Michael Lewis
- pirate787 5y ago
  The CDC (formally Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) has long tried to enter the gun control debate. That has nothing to do with their mission of communicable disease prevention. Congress has repeatedly voted to block them.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    The wider medical community has been vocal about gun control, because guns are a leading cause of injury and death. The fact that it's not a virus or bacteria is arguably a pointless technicality, incidental to saving people's lives. The people who catch the 'bullet' disease are treated at hospitals by doctors. You may not think it's appropriate, but many doctors disagree. There's nothing in that indicating it's politicized; people may want to politicize gun control, Coronavirus, and lots of other health issues, but that doesn't make the health institutions political for dealing with it. (They also want to politicize the CDC and every other democratic institution (the Post Office, etc.).)
    - chana_masala 5y ago
      Should CDC also be involved in traffic laws too?
      - 5y ago

artificialLimbs 5y ago

>> It's hard to find any benefit to smoking... Ritualistically, as an exercise in getting out of one's 'normal' consciousness, it can present useful information for self study. In habitual form, it is of course very destructive.

groby_b 5y ago
So the "getting out of consciousness" that is the relaxation experience many "habitual" smokers have is worthless, while changing your state for ritualistic purposes is helpful? Both are very tiny self-reported effects that are close to non-observable for outsiders. Why would one outweigh the other, if you allow self-reported epsilon effects at all?
- artificialLimbs 5y ago
  >> getting out of consciousness You mean sleep (as in, night time bed activity)? I'm not talking about sleep. I am discussing getting out of normative modes of being but not going to sleep. >> that is the relaxation experience This is not the only experience resulting from tobacco use. There are more subtle effects as well. >> worthless I haven't declared a value judgment against the habit. I am saying it is destructive to the body. Do you believe that to not be a fact? >> helpful Again, I'm not presenting value judgments here. I am saying it can present useful information. It sounds to me like you have taken offense somewhere for some reason. I am not putting weight on one or the other. *edit: clarity

TameAntelope 5y ago

This isn't politics, it's safety. I accept the argument that the CDC has become overly innumerate in how to live a healthy life, but it's not a liberal or conservative idea to be cautious.

area51org 5y ago
There is such a thing as being unnecessarily and overly cautious, however. This sure seems like a good example of that.
- hcurtiss 5y ago
  Exactly. Precaution comes at a price. The question is whether the benefits of the precaution outweigh the costs. And that is an answer science cannot, and should not, answer. These days, it seems, many scientists are desperate to cloak their policy preferences in "science." That is precisely why there is presently so much distrust of scientists.
  - psyklic 5y ago
    I never understood distrust, because scientists base their work on research that is extensively cited. Making conclusions that are not supported by evidence, e.g. "desperately cloaking" policy preferences, could jeopardize one's scientific career. Many people seem to unrealistically demand scientific recommendations to be "guarantees." However, scientific conclusions are very precisely made best guesses, built on humanity's knowledge.
    - klabb3 5y ago
      > I never understood distrust, because scientists base their work on research that is extensively cited. It's good that the supply chain of science is traceable, but it doesn't guarantee truth by any means. Their are many non-scientific human endeavors that have traceability, take software development for instance. I think the distrust comes from many fields having fairly obvious political trends, in particular social sciences. Another source of distrust is overextrapolation of science by authorities. For instance, science might say that certain drugs are harmful if abused, and politicians may use that to claim the war on drugs is based on science, which obviously is not true. Lastly, some fields struggle producing consistent and falsifiable results, such as economics and psychology.

tomp 5y ago

As we've seen in the past 2 years, there's no real positive benefit to society to frequent business flying (at pre-pandemic levels). Like smoking, we don't need to completely ban air travel. The equivalent would be severely limiting it (for example, prohibiting business flying).

ccakes 5y ago
> The equivalent would be severely limiting it (for example, prohibiting business flying). People fly to go on holiday and experience cultures other than their own which is something we should be encouraging rather than discouraging. I strongly agree with reducing needless business travel but if doing so also limited vacation travel I think it'd be a net negative.
- dleslie 5y ago
  We should be discouraging all air travel. All of it.
  - xyzzyz 5y ago
    No, we shouldn’t. Instead, we should work on ensuring that as many people are able to enjoy new opportunities it provides if they do desire as possible. Everyone should be able to enjoy life.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      Climate impact is significant. That's going to interfere with generations enjoying their lives.
      - xyzzyz 5y ago
        We should then work on enabling people to fly with no climate impact. For example, using zero emissions energy to synthesize jet fuel. The goal should be to enable people, not to block them.

zdragnar 5y ago

Nicotine (especially when consumed via smoking) has some negative side effects, but is also a neurotrophic and can be quite beneficial. Addiction and blood pressure are really the only downsides if you were to consume it in the form of, say, gum (and boy does the addiction suck).

drekk 5y ago
The addiction is one of the most difficult to quit. With repeated use the nice feelings stop as well. There's no benefit to it, you're hijacking some neural circuitry until it hijacks your life
krrrh 5y ago
Regular consumption of nicotine also reduces Alzheimer's risk (and probably Parkinson's). This has been known for a long time. Few things are absolute. 1991: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC1670208/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC1670208/ > The risk of Alzheimer's disease decreased with increasing daily number of cigarettes smoked before onset of disease (relative risk 0.3 in those smoking greater than 21/day v 1 in non-smokers). In six families in which the disease was apparently inherited as an autosomal dominant disorder, the mean age of onset was 4.17 years later in smoking patients than in non-smoking patients from the same family (p = 0.03). There is also ongoing research on this topic funded by the US government. https://www.alzheimers.gov/clinical-trials/memory-improvement-through-nicotine-dosing-mind https://www.alzheimers.gov/clinical-trials/memory-improvemen...
- kortex 5y ago
  Nit: that study is cigarettes. There is more to tobacco than nicotine, such as harmala alkaloids and miscellaneous MAOIs. Either way, that's super interesting.

avar 5y ago

> It’s hard to find any benefit to smoking, first hand or second. The same is true about recreational travel. People expose themselves to high levels of radiation and travel risk purely for recreational purposes. Smokers inhale carcinogenic substances for recreational purposes.

kaba0 5y ago
Is the risk for the two even remotely in the same ballpark?
- pas 5y ago
  No, but the problem is that a scientifically informed (evidence based) public health site communicating risks should be consistent and shouldn't use inconsistent absolutist language.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- pvarangot 5y ago
  Well, it depends on how much you smoke and how much you travel. Thing is if I smoke even one cigarette like as a digestive after a big dinner once every four months I have to pay 600 dollars of extra health insurance per year because of how all this bullshit messaging about how nicotine works. And of course it's to protect something like only 35% of the human population that will get addicted to it. I stopped smoking for months or years many times and I never ever had any side effect except maybe I'm a bit tired the first days. I don't even put up extra weight or anything like that. I feel like an adult baby being treated like I need financial punishment to help me be a healthy person.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    > Well, it depends on how much you smoke and how much you travel. I find it hard to believe that smoking could be less dangerous than flying even for people who work as airline pilots or flight attendants.

hidudeurcool 5y ago

benefit of smoking is the buzz and social enhancement. it is not useless.

wolverine876 5y ago

> The CDC has been unfortunately hopelessly politicized. These accusations are a common way to tear down democratic institutions, handing power to corporations and powerful individuals. Do you have evidence of it? I've seen none, other than some things attempted by political appointees during the Trump administration.

mattmaroon 5y ago
Yes. If you want a really good explanation of how it happened and the effects it’s practically the subject of The Premonition by Michael Lewis
pirate787 5y ago
The CDC (formally Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) has long tried to enter the gun control debate. That has nothing to do with their mission of communicable disease prevention. Congress has repeatedly voted to block them.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  The wider medical community has been vocal about gun control, because guns are a leading cause of injury and death. The fact that it's not a virus or bacteria is arguably a pointless technicality, incidental to saving people's lives. The people who catch the 'bullet' disease are treated at hospitals by doctors. You may not think it's appropriate, but many doctors disagree. There's nothing in that indicating it's politicized; people may want to politicize gun control, Coronavirus, and lots of other health issues, but that doesn't make the health institutions political for dealing with it. (They also want to politicize the CDC and every other democratic institution (the Post Office, etc.).)
  - chana_masala 5y ago
    Should CDC also be involved in traffic laws too?
    - 5y ago