shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I did actually ask my mate for a blast on her fag when she came to see me yesterday, luckily she’s a good mate and completely ignored me
Just completed 21 days cold turkey .
Still reckon if I took a walk up to the local shop to buy some milk I'd cave.
Did 2 weeks off the ale as well
IDK are poeple in that group more likely to Extreme shield than wider public.So smokers are 80% better of 'shielding' than non smokers?
Or less likely? Poor people more likely to smoke than rich. Poor people more likely to congregate than rich and have a BBQ....IDK are poeple in that group more likely to Extreme shield than wider public.
And want to share a tab while social distancing.Saw a theory once about smokers not liking close social contact and the smoking being a way of keeping others at a distance.
So maybe that’s it? We just smell and have natural social distancing?
I've been using Roylab stats on YT .Where are people going for the latest statistics updates for the UK?
find the BBC UK home page buries stuff so it’s hard to find. Would like to see updated charts and daily figures, etc.
Thanks!
Yeah the smell is obnoxious,the same as when you have a coldAnd want to share a tab while social distancing.
How about sharing a spliff?
Smokers love socialising. I actually miss not standing around with smokers. But I now dislike the smell of smokers that I didn't really notice when I smoked.
I did actually ask my mate for a blast on her fag when she came to see me yesterday, luckily she’s a good mate and completely ignored me
I think Sweden is taking a huge risk but it’s up to each country to try to manage the disease as best they can. If they can allow it to spread without breaching their health service capacity then who’s to say that ultimately that might not be the best decision in the long run.
The problem I can see with their strategy is the lag between restriction measures being implemented and the confirmed cases coming through (people showing symptoms and then needing hospital treatment) and whether it spreads to higher risk individuals. This is made even more difficult due to the high number of asymptomatic/mild cases ie You could start putting restrictions in place to control the spread but it could be too late as it’s spread more than you think and you’re going to breach your health service capacity anyway.
I honestly don’t think anyone will know the best solution/strategy for months or even longer. The only fact we know at the moment is we don’t have a vaccine and therefore this is around for a good while yet.
All countries can do in the meantime is try to buy some time in order for us to find out how to best to manage/treat the virus (or find a vaccine), whilst remaining within their health care capacity, without damaging the economy to the point whereby more damage is done to society than would be done by the virus itself.
Not easy
ps also, if it’s discovered that you can catch it again, there’s another layer to the mess which changes the dynamics again
Time will tell if Sweden have got it right or not. The stats seem to show they're following a similar pattern to us but it would need someone much better with numbers and data than me to say that with any confidence.I think Sweden is taking a huge risk but it’s up to each country to try to manage the disease as best they can. If they can allow it to spread without breaching their health service capacity then who’s to say that ultimately that might not be the best decision in the long run.
Omitted variable bias.Time will tell if Sweden have got it right or not. The stats seem to show they're following a similar pattern to us but it would need someone much better with numbers and data than me to say that with any confidence.
And while we're looking at stats here's one that confuses me. Deaths seems to have little connection to population which seems really counterintuitive.
Time will tell if Sweden have got it right or not. The stats seem to show they're following a similar pattern to us but it would need someone much better with numbers and data than me to say that with any confidence.
And while we're looking at stats here's one that confuses me. Deaths seems to have little connection to population which seems really counterintuitive.
So true.
Didn’t see calling anyone a racist who wants to drown immigrants by shooting holes in their boats in any of them squares. See, even right wing nonsense is calling you out as a racist.So true.
The guess is it is nicotine. But as usual many seem to know more than the specialists know.
About 50% of smokers die from a smoking related cause. Fact.
In France over 25% of the population still smoke. Fact.
In France only about 5% of those with the virus are smokers. Seemingly a Fact.
The big question is how come smokers who have respiratory problems have an 80% lower chance of getting a respiratory based virus. This could be the start of a breakthrough.
So what do the experts on here say?
Why is that racist? It isnt. I'm not racist. You are. Your obsessed with bringing colour/race into everything. Is that all you've got? One daft comment from 6 months ago? The majority of us dont give a shit what colour/race people are. Its bigots like you that keep bringing it up. You're obsessed with trying to divide us.Didn’t see calling anyone a racist who wants to drown immigrants by shooting holes in their boats in any of them squares. See, even right wing nonsense is calling you out as a racist.
So true.
Well I guess being a teacher you've got all the time in the world havent you. Keep taking your tory pay cheque uni boy.Think I’ll make a Coventrian bingo
Why is that racist? It isnt. I'm not racist. You are. Your obsessed with bringing colour/race into everything. Is that all you've got? One daft comment from 6 months ago? The majority of us dont give a shit what colour/race people are. Its bigots like you that keep bringing it up. You're obsessed with trying to divide us.
I don’t know if you’re being facetious but infection rate and the severity of the infection are two different things. If I had to make an educated guess I would put it down to one or several of the hundreds of chemicals in tobacco smoke that is hostile to the virus. I could imagine this in particular in houses covered in ash over the years.
If you’re a regular smoker however and get infected then you’re in big big trouble. And I know I get pulled up for ‘I have a degree’ but here it’s directly relevant-I’m not just guessing
Well I guess being a teacher you've got all the time in the world havent you. Keep taking your tory pay cheque uni boy.
Well I guess being a teacher you've got all the time in the world havent you. Keep taking your tory pay cheque uni boy.
There’s so many possible variables. With my data head on (my degree) I’m wondering is the age profile of smokers in France trends younger than other countries. Some light by googling suggests 29% of students smoke in France and much less than that in the U.K. for example. Maybe our smokers are older and more vulnerable than theirs?
That’s the danger of isolating one variable in one country.
It’s the taxpayer who pays him you moron.Well I guess being a teacher you've got all the time in the world havent you. Keep taking your tory pay cheque uni boy.
I think there is something in the idea that the rank tobacco chemicals on your body and where you live would reduce the virus’ survival chances. But it needs investigation
It’s the taxpayer who pays him you moron.
This ties into a big bear of mine, don’t know if you can share any insight. When I was a poor student I looked into medical testing as a money earner and couldn’t do it as every advert said “no smokers”, I always got annoyed that they didn’t test medicine on smokers. Is that actually true or is there a set of smoker trials I just wasn’t seeing?
I think it’s for the same reason that they normally don’t allow those with very high or low BMIs-they’re just generally more at risk to secondary health problems. Studies specifically for those groups are a different matter
It’s the taxpayer who pays him you moron.
I think Sweden is taking a huge risk but it’s up to each country to try to manage the disease as best they can. If they can allow it to spread without breaching their health service capacity then who’s to say that ultimately that might not be the best decision in the long run.
The problem I can see with their strategy is the lag between restriction measures being implemented and the confirmed cases coming through (people showing symptoms and then needing hospital treatment) and whether it spreads to higher risk individuals. This is made even more difficult due to the high number of asymptomatic/mild cases ie You could start putting restrictions in place to control the spread but it could be too late as it’s spread more than you think and you’re going to breach your health service capacity anyway.
I honestly don’t think anyone will know the best solution/strategy for months or even longer. The only fact we know at the moment is we don’t have a vaccine and therefore this is around for a good while yet.
All countries can do in the meantime is try to buy some time in order for us to find out how to best to manage/treat the virus (or find a vaccine), whilst remaining within their health care capacity, without damaging the economy to the point whereby more damage is done to society than would be done by the virus itself.
Not easy
ps also, if it’s discovered that you can catch it again, there’s another layer to the mess which changes the dynamics again
I hope so. It always felt like it was “eh fuck em if there’s complications” type thing. I know there’s a sex bias in a lot of older research where only men are tested and women are treated as shrunken men, so wondered if it was the same.
If they want drugs to pass clinical trials they have to do it by the book. Not sure they always did though!
As I say above I’m not supporting their strategy but the death rates are a strange one until you know how many in the population has it/has had it. Even the best testing (major) nations haven’t really got a clue, only estimates from some relatively low number antibody sampling
If for example after testing we find out that half the population in Sweden has had it at the current number of deaths then it would put a totally different slant on the argument
I’m not saying that’s the case at all but you get the point.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?