Focusing on the spreaders.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.
Nope. He's not. A few days ago he started a thread gloating over the smokers and drinkers and drug users who are going to die.
That's why we need to make them a focus group for study to halt the spread of the virus. It's just good science.
Focus on what? That they are at risk? What about the people with diabetes, heart trouble, who are immuno-compromised? They are also at risk. Why just study the people engaged in behaviors you disapprove of?

You're not fooling me.
 
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.
Nope. He's not. A few days ago he started a thread gloating over the smokers and drinkers and drug users who are going to die.
That's why we need to make them a focus group for study to halt the spread of the virus. It's just good science.
Focus on what? That they are at risk? What about the people with diabetes, heart trouble, who are immuno-compromised? They are also at risk. Why just study the people engaged in behaviors you disapprove of?

You're not fooling me.
The compromised are not the one's out in public spreading it. They also adhere to medical advice unlike the spreaders who just thumb their noses at it.
 
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.
Nope. He's not. A few days ago he started a thread gloating over the smokers and drinkers and drug users who are going to die.
That's why we need to make them a focus group for study to halt the spread of the virus. It's just good science.
Focus on what? That they are at risk? What about the people with diabetes, heart trouble, who are immuno-compromised? They are also at risk. Why just study the people engaged in behaviors you disapprove of?

You're not fooling me.
The compromised are not the one's out in public spreading it. They also adhere to medical advice unlike the spreaders who just thumb their noses at it.
"The Spreaders?"
OMG Ray. Just keep making things up as you go along.
 
There is at least one study suggesting that smokers in China were disproportionately underrepresented in COVID hospitalizations. Perhaps in the name of flattening the curve, everyone should be required to smoke. The government can send cartons of marlboros or bags of weed to every household.
95% of adult men in China smoke cigarettes. Virtually everyone of these elderly chain smokers have chronic lung problems.
In Italy 95% of people over seventy live with extended families.
Notice a correlation?
The old and sick are the ones who are dying.
Yesterday on CNN there was a huge 'BREAKING NEWS"! headline that claimed an "infant had died of the virus". It turned out that the infant had been born with massive health problems. CNN didn't bother to mention that fact. Fucking bastards!



"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. "
 
There is at least one study suggesting that smokers in China were disproportionately underrepresented in COVID hospitalizations. Perhaps in the name of flattening the curve, everyone should be required to smoke. The government can send cartons of marlboros or bags of weed to every household.
95% of adult men in China smoke cigarettes. Virtually everyone of these elderly chain smokers have chronic lung problems.
In Italy 95% of people over seventy live with extended families.
Notice a correlation?
The old and sick are the ones who are dying.
Yesterday on CNN there was a huge 'BREAKING NEWS"! headline that claimed an "infant had died of the virus". It turned out that the infant had been born with massive health problems. CNN didn't bother to mention that fact. Fucking bastards!



"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. "
That study tells very little and it seems to rely on some phantom statistical model that is more opinion than fact.

The point of the op is that people who smoke are risk takers who ignore medical advice and are thus more prone to carrying and spreading disease.

An esoteric study that draws conclusions on ambiguous models is of little value in informing the public about where and who the spreaders are.

If the point of the op is invalid, then why did all this happen?




 
Last edited:
There is at least one study suggesting that smokers in China were disproportionately underrepresented in COVID hospitalizations. Perhaps in the name of flattening the curve, everyone should be required to smoke. The government can send cartons of marlboros or bags of weed to every household.
95% of adult men in China smoke cigarettes. Virtually everyone of these elderly chain smokers have chronic lung problems.
In Italy 95% of people over seventy live with extended families.
Notice a correlation?
The old and sick are the ones who are dying.
Yesterday on CNN there was a huge 'BREAKING NEWS"! headline that claimed an "infant had died of the virus". It turned out that the infant had been born with massive health problems. CNN didn't bother to mention that fact. Fucking bastards!



"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. "
That study tells very little and it seems to rely on some phantom statistical model that is more opinion than fact.

The point of the op is that people who smoke are risk takers who ignore medical advice and are thus more prone to carrying and spreading disease.

An esoteric study that draws conclusions on ambiguous models is of little value in informing the public about where and who the spreaders are.

If the point of the op is invalid, then why did all this happen?





Pharmacy and supermarket sales are not the least bit scientific. There is not factual basis for your claim. There is factual basis to call it into question.
 
Anybody remember the CDC tracking down the sexual partners of people who came down with the AIDS virus? Probably not because it didn't happen.
 

Forum List

Back
Top