The great Covid and smoking cover-up?

> 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.

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/2021/05/07/health/coronavirus-airbor...

https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-tiny-scientific-screwu...

This is true but a more subtle distinction about size of droplet.

If the virus spread primarily by aerosols then cloth and surgical masks would have little preventative value. But we know that they do have preventative value.

The reality as understood today is a mix of droplet sizes. Larger droplets carry more load and hence more risk but work over a smaller radius. But smaller droplets can carry enough load to infect; especially since later variants seem more infectious (i.e. require a smaller load to gain a foothold).

> on his web log

Also called blog, since ~20 years.

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 be the end of the discussion, or at least the starting point. I'm not sure I agree. Given the significant limitations present in all medical studies like this, I think it could make some sense to give a lot more weight to the conclusion reached through a fundamental understanding of how the human body works. Some hesitancy to overturn that conclusion based on a handful of inevitably flawed studies seems prudent to me, or at least not crazy.

I'm reminded of the current tensions around "evidence-based practice" where medicine is transformed into essentially flowcharts that get continuously updated according to peer-reviewed research. It sounds like a good idea, but it's been somewhat controversial since that's not how medicine has traditionally been practiced. It significantly reduces a doctor's ability to problem solve through reasoning, which has some benefits but also some clear downsides as well.