3 ms·

On the balance, aren't the risks still heavily against smoking? So what's the point of promoting one benefit of smoking when you still want to advise everyone

by jmull 4y ago

On the balance, aren't the risks still heavily against smoking? So what's the point of promoting one benefit of smoking when you still want to advise everyone to stop or never start smoking? This article suggests a coverup, but as the author points out, there's no shortage of science showing that smoking is associated with a lower chance of getting Covid. The author is really complaining about the interpretations and conclusions... but those are right: people should still not smoke. So all he's actually complaining about is the lack of nuance in the expression of the conclusions. I don't disagree with that -- bad writing about the meaning of scientific studies is very common -- but at least in this case the overall conclusion is still correct. I wouldn't take this one to the mat. You're just going to end up convincing certain people to start smoking and any larger point about the poor state of scientific reporting is going to be muddied by the political partisans.

kelnos 4y ago
> So all he's actually complaining about is the lack of nuance in the expression of the conclusions. That's not what happened, though. The article claims that public health authorities, as well as random doctors, were denouncing these studies, and were claiming that they were a myth. Not just that they disagreed with conclusions. (And even then, merely disagreeing with conclusions sounds pretty dishonest.) I think it's fair to say something like: "Yes, some researchers have drawn conclusions that smoking can help protect you from COVID infection. However, the health risks associated with smoking can be much worse than a COVID infection, and there are many other ways you can safely reduce your risk of COVID infection." But instead, they said: "Research? Yeah, that research is garbage and the people involved are completely wrong." If the article here is to be believed, that's a flat-out lie. > You're just going to end up convincing certain people to start smoking I get it, but I think the cat was already out of that bag. I'm sure some people did start smoking based on these studies, regardless of what public health orgs said. And yes, maybe more people might have done the same if they'd acknowledged the potential correctness of the studies, but still urged people not to smoke. But I think that's an outcome we just have to accept; lying about scientific evidence hurts the credibility of these organizations in a way much worse than a possible increase of smoking-related health problems. And, personally, if I was in on one of those decision-making meetings, I wouldn't be comfortable lying to the public in that way. I would hope I'd have the stones to resign rather than do that.
mertd 4y ago
I don't understand what's being covered up. Sure it is an interesting phenomenon but purely from an academic perspective. It's not like smoking became a net positive for health. It's literally the definition of non news.
orangecat 4y ago
On the balance, aren't the risks still heavily against smoking? Yes. So what's the point of promoting one benefit of smoking when you still want to advise everyone to stop or never start smoking? The first point is honesty, and that should be sufficient on its own. But even ignoring that, the obvious next step is to figure out the mechanism by which smoking inhibits Covid, which may lead to better vaccines or treatments.
- jmull 4y ago
  > ...honesty... I agree honesty is good. But the author published an article "Smoke [cigarettes], save lives", which leads with a fat lie, so we're not getting it here. > ...the obvious next step is to figure out the mechanism by which smoking inhibits Covid... Of course. But that's separate from the media the author is complaining about.

by jmull 4y ago

kelnos 4y ago

> So all he's actually complaining about is the lack of nuance in the expression of the conclusions. That's not what happened, though. The article claims that public health authorities, as well as random doctors, were denouncing these studies, and were claiming that they were a myth. Not just that they disagreed with conclusions. (And even then, merely disagreeing with conclusions sounds pretty dishonest.) I think it's fair to say something like: "Yes, some researchers have drawn conclusions that smoking can help protect you from COVID infection. However, the health risks associated with smoking can be much worse than a COVID infection, and there are many other ways you can safely reduce your risk of COVID infection." But instead, they said: "Research? Yeah, that research is garbage and the people involved are completely wrong." If the article here is to be believed, that's a flat-out lie. > You're just going to end up convincing certain people to start smoking I get it, but I think the cat was already out of that bag. I'm sure some people did start smoking based on these studies, regardless of what public health orgs said. And yes, maybe more people might have done the same if they'd acknowledged the potential correctness of the studies, but still urged people not to smoke. But I think that's an outcome we just have to accept; lying about scientific evidence hurts the credibility of these organizations in a way much worse than a possible increase of smoking-related health problems. And, personally, if I was in on one of those decision-making meetings, I wouldn't be comfortable lying to the public in that way. I would hope I'd have the stones to resign rather than do that.

mertd 4y ago

I don't understand what's being covered up. Sure it is an interesting phenomenon but purely from an academic perspective. It's not like smoking became a net positive for health. It's literally the definition of non news.

orangecat 4y ago

On the balance, aren't the risks still heavily against smoking? Yes. So what's the point of promoting one benefit of smoking when you still want to advise everyone to stop or never start smoking? The first point is honesty, and that should be sufficient on its own. But even ignoring that, the obvious next step is to figure out the mechanism by which smoking inhibits Covid, which may lead to better vaccines or treatments.

jmull 4y ago
> ...honesty... I agree honesty is good. But the author published an article "Smoke [cigarettes], save lives", which leads with a fat lie, so we're not getting it here. > ...the obvious next step is to figure out the mechanism by which smoking inhibits Covid... Of course. But that's separate from the media the author is complaining about.