Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The great Covid and smoking cover-up?

spiked-online.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 248 posts

Re: The great Covid and smoking cover-up?

#231

Post by Izkata »

snowwrestler wrote: post #106
hackinthebochs wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue of an airborne disease is not just a matter of droplets, but whether infectious particles are aerosolized such that they hang in the air for hours. The 6 feet social distancing rule only makes sense in the context of droplet based, non-aerosol transmission. It was only after more than a year into the pandemic that CDC acknowledged that COVID is airborne and updated their guidance. https://www.nytimes.com/20…

“Airborne” and “aerosols” are not synonyms. You’re right about aerosols but the question above is whether we knew that the virus traveled in a manner that a mask could interfere with. That includes short-range droplets, not just aerosols. We knew very early on that droplets were likely and that masks could block many droplets. The question was whether the mask would itself become a major vector in the process.

No, the question was whether it was droplet or aerosol. Experts insisted on droplet even though evidence pointed at aerosol, and cloth and surgical masks don't block aerosols, the particles are too small. That's what people are referring to when they say "masks don't work".

Re: The great Covid and smoking cover-up?

#232

Post by SirMaster »

Alex3917 wrote: post #184
jumanjijumanji wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure I'm just misunderstanding, but I don't follow the explanation. What do UVA and UVB have to do with this, and why does that lead to weird results?

The reason covid is dangerous is because it binds overly tightly to your ACE2 receptors on the cells in your endothelium and damages them, and when enough of these receptors are damaged the cells die. This can cause all sorts of issues like autoimmune cascades, blood clots, dysregulation of blood pressure and heart rate, etc. The reason vitamin D is protective is because when you're exposed to UVA, the vitamin D acts…

Do you know if you can get this beneficial UVA from an artificial lamp?

Is it as good as going outside?

Is it good enough to be a near-replacement or is it even worthwhile as a supplement?

Re: The great Covid and smoking cover-up?

#233

Post by sieabahlpark »

i_am_proteus wrote: post #14

Author compiled a lot of studies on his web log: https://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2021/08/smoking-and... The studies do appear to show that smoking cigarettes is correlated with a lower probability of getting the Covid, for a lot of different definitions of "getting the Covid." They also appear to be, by eyeball aggregate, inconclusive as to whether the risk of dying from the Covid is higher or lower for smok…

No post body was provided.

Re: The great Covid and smoking cover-up?

#234

Post by Alex3917 »

SirMaster wrote: post #232
Alex3917 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason covid is dangerous is because it binds overly tightly to your ACE2 receptors on the cells in your endothelium and damages them, and when enough of these receptors are damaged the cells die. This can cause all sorts of issues like autoimmune cascades, blood clots, dysregulation of blood pressure and heart rate, etc. The reason vitamin D is protective is because when you're exposed to UVA, the vitamin D acts…

Do you know if you can get this beneficial UVA from an artificial lamp? Is it as good as going outside? Is it good enough to be a near-replacement or is it even worthwhile as a supplement?

> Do you know if you can get this beneficial UVA from an artificial lamp?

I mean artificial tanning uses UVA lamps. But since you can get UVA even in winter, it's probably safer and more effective just to go outside.

Re: The great Covid and smoking cover-up?

#235

Post by nvrspyx »

i_am_proteus wrote: post #192
nvrspyx wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no such thing as a confounding factor for a correlation. Sure there is. As an example, let's say there's a positive correlation between the dose of some antidepressant and the probability of suicide. There could be a confounding variable with respect to the severity of depression in those samples such that people with more severe depression are more likely to take larger doses and more likely to commit sui…

In your example, the positive correlation between the dose of the antidepressant and the probability of suicide still exists in the data. What you're describing is sampling bias: the correlation between the antidepressant and probability of suicide in the sample may not reflect a similar correlation in a larger population.

> In your example, the positive correlation between the dose of the antidepressant and the probability of suicide still exists in the data.

Of course it does because the confounding factor of depression severity wasn't controlled for. You can't always control for confounding variables after the fact.

> What you're describing is sampling bias: the correlation between the antidepressant and probability of suicide in the sample may not reflect a similar correlation in a larger population.

Yes and no. I am describing sampling bias, but that's because the sampling bias is the source of the confounding variable in my example. The point was that the correlation was supposed to represent the relationship between antidepressant dosage and probability of suicide, not the relationship between people who typically take antidepressants and their probability of suicide. In my example, the dosage ended up being a dependent variable along with the probability of suicide and the severity of depression ended up being the independent variable, when the dosage was supposed to be the independent variable.

Re: The great Covid and smoking cover-up?

#236

Post by MockObject »

eurasiantiger wrote: post #216
RajT88 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. That is also a terrible idea. Worse than off-brand uses of other medications, because it is addictive on top of being unproven.

Tobacco addiction stems from psychoactive ”nicotine boosters” both preexisting in the tobacco plant as well as intentionally added to commercial cigarettes. Pure nicotine is not significantly habit-forming by itself. Just don’t combine it with coffee.

Then why do nicotine gums and patches work?

Re: The great Covid and smoking cover-up?

#237

Post by MockObject »

noelsusman wrote: post #99

This thread will surely devolve into a general repository for COVID contrarian angst, but the broader point in this article is an interesting one. I would summarize it by saying there's an asymmetry in evidence demanded for a claim based on whether or not it agrees with the conclusion obtained by reasoning from first principles. The author seems to be saying that rigorous, peer-reviewed, observational studies should…

> It significantly reduces a doctor's ability to problem solve through reasoning

You mean, reduces their ability to reason incorrectly and contradict the best practices encoded in that flowchart?

It's astounding and depressing that "evidence based medicine" isn't how medicine has been practiced for centuries now.

Re: The great Covid and smoking cover-up?

#238

Post by RobotToaster »

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #225
RobotToaster wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nicotine patches or inhalers would be an option? Assuming it is the nicotine and not a different chemical.

Like again, without incredibly strong empirical evidence, no ethics board will recommend a study on nicotine.

That would be a pretty ignorant ethics board then, given that pure nicotine at normal doses has few side effects, and unless combined with a monoamine oxidase inhibitor (as it is in tobacco) isn't particularly addictive.

Re: The great Covid and smoking cover-up?

#239

Post by blindriver »

shapefrog wrote: post #219
blindriver wrote: post #141

I distinctly remember this fact very early on in 2020 and thought it was pretty interesting. I am actually shocked that this inconvenient truth has been completely buried.

If you know about something then how is it that the thing in question has been hidden from you?

English probably isn't your first language, but "buried" and "hidden" have different connotations. When I said it was buried, it means all the subsequent studies. This is what the article was about. I remember early during the pandemic articles talking about how smoking appeared have a protective effect, and then it was no longer talked about. I thought maybe it was disproven but it doesn't seem to be the case, it was just buried.

Re: The great Covid and smoking cover-up?

#240

Post by simonebrunozzi »

enneff wrote: post #108
simonebrunozzi wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> on his web log Also called blog, since ~20 years.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Edit out swipes.

Thanks for reminding me. Point taken.
Post reply on HN