SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
We received three different submissions pertaining to the effects of smoking on COVID-19. One study suggests that those who smoke have a reduced likelihood of hospitalization. The comingling of separate data for male and female patients and analysis based on that data seems unusual to me. The second report is not restricted to hospitalizations, but only to those who tested positive for the virus. Their results also suggested a lessened number of self-identified smokers than smoking rates in the general public would suggest. The third and final story submission introduced vaping to the discussion, and comes to the opposite conclusion in suggesting that smoking or vaping may increase the risk of contracting COVID-19.
Confounding these analyses is that all reports of smoking are self-reported. I can well imagine if someone had tried to quit smoking, and had convinced their spouse they had indeed stayed stopped, they would be reluctant to reveal in their spouse's presence that they were a smoker. If anything, though, would that not run counter to the possibility of a protective effect? As with most things pertaining to the virus, it is likely too early to tell for certain, but it does add another dimension to the discussion. Assuming that smoking does have a preventative effect, what could be the cause? Increased residue in the lungs makes it harder for the virus to latch onto the lung's cells and infect? Could it be that chemicals in the smoke serve to impair the virus's ability to survive in the lungs and cause an infection?
Study: Smokers Appear Less Likely to be Hospitalised with COVID-19
Smoking may reduce the likelihood of being hospitalised with coronavirus, claims a study.
Here is the abstract of the study – Smoking, vaping and hospitalization for COVID-19 – by researchers at the University of West Attica in Greece and New York University.
The study presents an analysis of the current smoking prevalence among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in China, compared to the population smoking prevalence in China (52.1% in males and 2.7% in females). Through a systematic research of the literature (PubMed) we identified 7 studies examining the clinical characteristics of a total of 2352 hospitalized COVID-19 patients that presented data on the smoking status.
The expected number of smokers was calculated using the formula Expected smokers = (males x 0.521) + (females x 0.027). An unusually low prevalence of current smoking was observed among hospitalized COVID-19 patients (8.7%, 95%CI: 7.6-9.9%) compared to the expected prevalence based on smoking prevalence in China (30.3%, 95%CI: 28.4-32.1%; z-statistic: 22.80, P < 0.0001). This preliminary analysis does not support the argument that current smoking is a risk factor for hospitalization for COVID-19, and might even suggest a protective role.
The latter could be linked to the down-regulation of ACE2 expression that has been previously known to be induced by smoking. However, other confounding factors need to be considered and the accuracy of the recorded smoking status needs to be determined before making any firm conclusions. As a result, the generalized advice on quitting smoking as a measure to improve health risk remains valid, but no recommendation can currently be made concerning the effects of smoking on the risk of hospitalization for COVID-19.
No studies recording e-cigarette use status among hospitalized COVID-19 patients were identified. Thus, no recommendation can be made for e-cigarette users.
Does smoking PROTECT against coronavirus?
When world-famous artist David Hockney wrote a letter to the Daily Mail saying he believes smoking could protect people against the coronavirus many scoffed.
Mr Hockney wrote: 'Could it not be that smokers have developed an immune system to this virus? With all these figures coming out, it's beginning to look like that to me.'
Understandably the claim was brushed off as laughable and 'rubbish' by many.
But is it?
A leading infectious disease expert at University College London, Professor Francois Balloux, said there is 'bizarrely strong' evidence it could be true.
And data from multiple Chinese studies shows that COVID-19 hospital patients contained a smaller proportion of smokers than the general population (6.5 per cent compared to 26.6 per cent), suggesting they were less likely to end up in hospital.
Another study, by America's Centers for Disease Control of over 7,000 people who tested positive for coronavirus, found that just 1.3 per cent of them were smokers - against the 14 per cent of all Americans that the CDC says smoke.
The study also found that the smokers stood no greater chance of ending up in hospital or an ICU.
The reasons for this are unclear.
FDA Shifts Its Covid-19 Stance on Vaping, Smoking Impact
(Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Food and Drug Administration modified its stance on Covid-19 and vaping, saying it has an unknown effect on the risk of the new coronavirus, while warning that smoking can create worse outcomes.
"E-cigarette use can expose the lungs to toxic chemicals, but whether those exposures increase the risk of Covid-19 is not known," the agency said Wednesday in an emailed response to a question from Bloomberg News.
The agency had said late last month that vapers and smokers with underlying health conditions might be at higher risk from complications.
Its description of cigarettes' risks also differed from its earlier statements. "Cigarette smoking causes heart and lung diseases, suppresses the immune system, and increases the risk of respiratory infections," FDA spokeswoman Alison Hunt said. "People who smoke cigarettes may be at increased risk from Covid-19, and may have worse outcomes from Covid-19."
Original Submission #1 Original Submission #2 Original Submission #3
(Score: 1, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 17 2020, @12:56AM (37 children)
On the contrary. You who suffer from the TDS have the attitude, "If you're not with us, you're against us." Same kinda crap that Bush Junior tried to pass off as patriotism, or some such. We, who merely dislike and distrust Trump appear to be Trump supporters to people like you.
At the last election, it came down to one of two choices at the polls. That's the way it usually goes. The alternative to Trump was much worse than Trump. Trump got enough of the popular vote and the electoral vote, that Hillary was sent home.
Now, please, get the fuck over it. The more you bitch and whine, the more WE enjoy poking you.
Too bad for you, the D party is offering another loser, a poser, a fake, as their candidate. Trump is going to win this election, as well. Get used to it. You don't have to like it, just get over it. Or, get used to being poked fun at, it doesn't matter all that much to the rest of us.
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Friday April 17 2020, @02:24AM
A correction, there were at least 5 choices on most ballots -- Green, Libertarian, and write-in in addition to the usual scum. But I do agree that the relentless drumbeat against Trump is self-defeating in that it makes it less likely for those who call him out on bad shit to be taken seriously and perversely, may actually help him by raising sympathy for him.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2020, @02:34AM (14 children)
"At the last election, it came down to one of two choices at the polls. That's the way it usually goes. The alternative to Trump was much worse than Trump."
Was she? Really? I am pretty sure we wouldn't have nearly as much raging incompetence if Hillary were in charge right now. Don't get me wrong: I’m sure she would have her own set of screwups, but nothing like we have seen these last few years.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday April 17 2020, @03:20AM (13 children)
She was the most corrupt politician to ever run for the office, so, yes, she was worse.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by dry on Friday April 17 2020, @04:22AM (12 children)
Don't you mean the most investigated politician in history? All I remember is investigation after investigation by people who were highly motivated to find dirt and guilt .
Perhaps it's the old thing, if someone gets arrested, tried, and found not guilty, people think they're guilty.
From the outside looking in, one depressing thing was how few people voted third party in your last election that seemed to be a contest on who was the most corrupt with the winner becoming President. Really a political system that was designed in the 18th century is perhaps not the best for the 21st century.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday April 17 2020, @04:35AM (8 children)
No, I really, really don't. She's walked away from things that would have landed any other politician in prison without so much as a slap on the wrist and the overwhelming majority of the very serious things she gets accused of that there is either compelling evidence or outright proof of never get investigated at all. She's straight up gangsta.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday April 17 2020, @04:41AM (7 children)
I guess the Republicans love her.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2020, @04:49AM (6 children)
I think you uncovered a new syndrome, HDS. You'd think after she lost they'd be done giving her a hard time, but sadly she is the only cover for their TDS they keep trying to hide.
(Score: 3, Touché) by dry on Friday April 17 2020, @04:57AM (4 children)
Yea, it amazes the hate that Hillary gets. Yes, she is unlikable but seems like your average corrupt American politician, doesn't even hide her taxes like some do, hasn't had her charity or university closed for illegal actions like some do.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by redneckmother on Friday April 17 2020, @07:56AM
The (our?) system is the problem. As are the "popular" attitudes of many of our citizens.
We've abdicated our humanity, our neighborliness, our individualism, our responsibilities, our power as individuals and a society, to the almighty fucking dollar.
It's now a "FUCK you, I got Mine" and / or "Fuck YOU, I'm gonna screw you outta yours" world. Never mind that if YOU fail, I will, too (in the long run, it just might not be apparent in the short run).
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday April 17 2020, @01:05PM (2 children)
She hides the money from the government so it isn't taxed rather than hiding her taxes. Money is the absolute least of what makes her a contemptible person though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2020, @10:17PM (1 child)
As usual no citations.
We went through all of this in 2016 anyway, and yet there was less evidence and proof found for her supposed crimes than for all of Trump's. And Clinton didn't have the DOD and a majority in congress covering for her.
At some point you'll have to come to terms with the fact that you have beliefs not grounded in reality.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday April 18 2020, @05:29PM
Bzzzt! There was no "proof" found for Trump's crimes. Hearsay and supposition is not proof and what specific crimes he was actually supposed to be guilty of was left extremely vague. On the other hand, Hillary's email server, as just one example, was found to be unquestionably illegal by the FBI and then no charges were filed when Comey decided it was okay because "she didn't mean to do anything wrong".
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday April 17 2020, @01:03PM
Nah. There's a huge difference between following someone's every word and completely losing my shit about everything they say or do and recognizing that someone sucks ass at being a human being. I don't even know what the wicked witch of the west wing is doing these days, much less cyberstalk her looking for things to rage about.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 17 2020, @07:34PM (2 children)
And they did. For example, plenty of dirt and guilt (federal felony level guilt) in the private email server.
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday April 17 2020, @10:52PM (1 child)
I guess that is why she's in prison. Or perhaps Trump told his Justice Department not to pursue his friend.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday April 18 2020, @02:31AM
Exactly the point.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2020, @02:59AM (5 children)
Thanks for illustrating my point so clearly. You're just one of the idiots who tries and deflect from the conservative screwup that is Trump, who is desperate to feel validation for that screwup instead of admitting that as is so commonly true, liberals were right again.
If screaming TDS is what you need to do to maintain your psychological integrity then OK, I just wish you had the guts to admit it. I didn't vote HRC, I'm not upset about "losing", and would have been fine if Trump was just an incompetent boob screwing things up. Instead he pushes the line towards fascism, is unabashedly corrupt and racist, and I'm angry about him representing the US because of how terrible he is. Not because I'm upset about "losing", I'm upset about fascism encroaching on my country and leading us down a dark path.
If anyone but an R had done 1/10th of what Trump has you'd be calling for blood and they would have been impeached in the first year. You are propping up fascism and it is an ugly path I never thought the US would actually go down.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday April 17 2020, @03:23AM (4 children)
Nobody's screaming TDS. Mocking you when you call him Literally Hitler and racist for eating chocolate ice cream for desert (or vanilla, you're not picky what you scream about)? Yeah, we're doing that.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2020, @04:06AM
They should make a neapolitan type icecream with 5.4% banana, 12.4% chocolate, 17% coffee, 2% strawberry, 63% vanilla.
That way Trump could eat icecream without being racist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2020, @04:18AM (2 children)
Are you sure you're not going senile? Sounds like you're confusing Obama with Trump.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday April 17 2020, @04:36AM (1 child)
Oh they both have their anti-fans. The TDS folks are about 35% more deranged though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2020, @04:46AM
So strange, as people get older they get more wrinkly and more wrinkles on the brain is supposed to be smarted. What happened with you? Too much moisturizer?
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2020, @05:51AM (2 children)
Incorrect.
You get shit because every time someone brings up Trump's corruption and criminality you reply with TDS. Please explain why you would do such thing in the face of blatant corruption and fascist behavior.
Oh right, you can't, cause all you can do is deflect with TDS as if your EMAILS and BENGHAZI for so many years was different. Oh wait, it was, cause Trump was found guilty but not prosecuted because the GOP and DOD decided the rule of law is a joke except for all those Trumpers thrown in jail, but years of investigation into HER came up with nothing.
Again, I could give two shits about Hillary, but the hypocrisy between how you react to suspicions of her criminality that Republicans could not find after YEARS is so clear with how you pretend Trump's obvious guilt doesn't exist.
Just ridiculous, you should be ashamed. If you could face reality you'd be surprised at the support you would get, but you're probably only satisfied by being the big-man-in-charge-who-knows-reality. Spoiled brat is what most people call that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2020, @09:01AM (1 child)
You get TDS comments not because people like Trump, but because your diatribes are so hysterically rabid. If you could sanely and calmly point out where he is doing all this evil, people might listen. But when you jump up and down screaming "literally Hitler" and accuse anyone who is not screaming of being a Nazi then people treat you as the irrational idiot you are.
Also, learn what the word literally means. Trump is not literally Hitler, that honor belongs to a guy named Adolph who died in 1945. Trump could be a worse person than Adolph and he still would not be "literally Hitler"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by catholocism on Saturday April 18 2020, @04:04AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by cmdrklarg on Friday April 17 2020, @04:03PM (9 children)
I don't know about you, but when I see someone constantly rising to Trump's defense I call that support. Why would you defend someone who you dislike and distrust?
That is very much a matter of opinion. I didn't care for HRC, but I could never get behind Trump for one reason: he's an dishonest asshole. HRC was about as dishonest as most politicians, but Trump takes it to breathtaking levels.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 17 2020, @07:37PM (8 children)
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Friday April 17 2020, @08:59PM (7 children)
Why would I pay attention to your perceptions instead of mine? I should believe you and not my lying eyes?
If you don't want to be seen as a Trump supporter, quit supporting him by defending him.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday April 18 2020, @02:32AM (6 children)
Should you pay attention to anyone's perceptions, including your own, rather than more objective methods that actually work?
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Monday April 20 2020, @04:49PM (5 children)
That makes no sense at all. You can't simply ignore your own perceptions.
Do you have examples of your "objective methods that actually work" that don't involve my own perceptions?
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 21 2020, @04:27AM (4 children)
Yes, google for Runaway Trump site:soylentnews.org [google.com]. Quite a few of the links have Runaway1956 discussing some criticism of Trump. For example, from the first ten links I searched for all Runaway posts and picked any that mentioned Trump:
What is telling is that none of them are genuinely complimentary (except the "Trump is an asshole" one). The most common compliment as such that Trump gets is that he isn't Clinton. That's not much.
The key here is that this exercise reduces observation and confirmation bias a lot. You're now evaluating what Runaway actually wrote than your hazy memory of what you think he wrote the few times you bothered to pay any attention. While I haven't compared those posts to the insulting ones claiming he's a full-blown MAGAmaniac, I noticed a few in there.
You can still claim that this is merely perception just like your hazy recollections were perception. The difference is that I made some systematic observations, using other sources than myself, in whole in ways that are designed to reduce common sources of personal bias, making it more than just my perception.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Tuesday April 21 2020, @03:54PM (3 children)
Seriously? I don't recall ever calling him a "MAGAmaniac". YOU may be confusing me with someone else.
I'm well aware that Runaway isn't a dyed-in-the-wool Trump supporter, and I'm not saying he is one. What I am saying is that defending someone (such as Trump, Obama, Putin, whoever) is likely to be seen as support for said person. If you don't want to be perceived as a supporter, don't constantly defend them.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 21 2020, @04:58PM (2 children)
So what? As I note, the "seen" part isn't relevant since such people will choose to see what they want to see. Here, Runaway's actual opinions and statements aren't really relevant to peoples' opinions of his alleged "support" of Trump.
That only matters if we respect the perceptions in question. A common source of Trump defense is people repeatedly making the same errors over and over again. For example, if we're going to impeach and convict Trump for criminal acts, then you need to come up with criminal acts first not some hazy yarn diagram [pinimg.com] (the Trump [politico.com] version).
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Tuesday April 21 2020, @09:38PM (1 child)
I used quotes because I was quoting the word you used.
Granted. My point still stands. He wouldn't be thought of as a Trump supporter if he did not defend him.
I didn't agree with the whole impeachment nonsense myself, but not for the same reasons. Impeachment does not require there to be criminal acts, just a majority of Representatives that don't like what the POTUS is doing. Conviction requires two-thirds of the Senate to vote for it. It was a waste of time because there was no way the Senate would have convicted when the GOP hold a majority.
Trump gets a lot of complaints leveled at him because of all the shit he does and says. Does he deserve all of the complaints? Probably not, but there is plenty to complain about.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 22 2020, @12:49AM
And I didn't use quotes because I wasn't quoting anyone directly.
You're using "thought" in a very generous sense.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Saturday April 18 2020, @05:56PM (1 child)
Let's at least be clear here, Trump lost the popular vote by a slim margin and won the electoral vote by a slim margin. It should be no surprise that a lot of people complain about him, there is no mandate from the people.
Not claiming Clinton would have ushered in a new golden age or anything, the Ds really dropped the ball.
TDS runs both ways. Some claim he can do no right, others that he can do no wrong.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 19 2020, @03:57PM
Yup, and the folks in either of those camps can't tell the difference between someone in the other camp and someone who doesn't subscribe to either cult.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.