Hey, if it saves one life. The irony is that one of the distractions we had as this crisis was happening (besides impeachment) was the moral panic over the crucial national issue of vaping.
My concern would be getting addicted as a result of this, but if it’s for a short period of time, it might not be a problem.
It might be the smoke. It might also be one of the cocktail of chemicals in cigarettes. Maybe it is a weak virus that gets sidelined by minor distractions.
I’d take the Chinese part of that study and put it where it belongs, in the trash. The fact that they used any data from China for even part of this makes the whole thing suspect.
Still, the other data looks interesting. Very much so. But, is it nicotine, or, smoking itself (all the other components of smoke)? One way to discern that would be to compare rates for vapers and smokers. Also, there may well be a huge difference between a light smoker (a pack a week) and a heavy smoker (2 packs a day).
On the flip side, I would like to see antibody testing to see if smokers get this less, or, are they getting it as often but are not as likely to present symptoms?
Yet another factor; smokers may be at even higher risk for the Wuhan Virus, do to a detail a lot of the claims, for and against, omit; smokers are prone to putting things in their mouths while out and about, and use unwashed hands to do so.
I wouldn’t be too concerned with becoming addicted. Patches come in dosages so one could simply slowly wean one self off of it. Unlike cigarettes, patches done have the high “hit” aspect that makes it addictive from the behavioral aspect. But I bet there’s not a lot of data on people who have used patches without first using cigarettes.
It’s also possible that by the time smokers get old enough to get the bat soup flu, there are not as many left to catch it.
Forget the nicotine, by George I think he got it. Maybe we should have papers that the only people allowed to go out have gone thru this process only way to be sure we eliminated this, and maybe to be safe Trump should too. I hear bleach is very effective.
It is interesting that you are suggesting Trump said to drink bleach but in the short clip at the link, Trump references what someone else said. Is it the media’s job to look into what this other person actually said or is it their job to get people to think Trump said to drink bleach?
Is it the media’s job to inform or to distort? I’m not their target audience but as a part of it, maybe you have some insight.
It is interesting that you suggest I said Trump said to drink it, please indicate where did I ?, others people might have (more often as a PSA to people to “please don’t drink bleach” than a report of what Trump said) but I have not and neither did the article I linked to. In my paragraph I refer to it as a process and he clearly said to “inject” disinfectant, then refer to some way of cleaning the lungs. I just conjecture that bleach as disinfectant is very effective. Which was referred to earlier in the press briefing. The article I linked to does not refer to drinking/ imbibing bleach or any disinfectant. It accurately reports the earlier part of the briefing about using UV and Disinfectants to clean surfaces, it headline does not use a IED actually refers to less controversial statement he made that more easily defend-able by his defenders and endorsed, not surprising since the Hill has had Trump friendly ownership and tight reign on editorial staff.
At what point did the “earlier report”, did the speaker mention using it internally or on a human body?, who was the individual that brought up using it on the Human body? At What point did the article I link to misrepresent the earlier report and Trumps comments afterwards?
It amazing Trump says or does something , then you and his defender come out and want to change the subject and blame the media as a whole. There is breathless articles about how the media treats Trump and not of what Trump did or said on particular sites and channels. That the media is the story.
Can you “nut pick” and call out bad actors sure both sides can do that. But the media is not a monotholic object , their good and bad parts, the part you most refer to are the newstainment media, that are rent seekers, those that seek out a targeted audience to keep them engage, those that want to provoke, those that want to become part of story. They come in all sides of political persuasion. I strongly suspect you watch and listen to one side of this newstainment spectrum.
Unfortunately media that seeks to Inform usually does not pay the bills. Now some times they fill in the cracks of the newstainment but certainly aren’t available in hours with the most viewership.
You seem to want to argue against straw men in your mind and attack generalities, not the specifics what presented to you. Is it in effort to distort?
< sarcasm>
Though I guess you right on one thing “the media” in entirety don’t want you to use the cure, the president proposed. They distort and claim it poisonous , this is just the elites and the globalist telling you what to do. Why are they trying to shut down on new ideas , and the bigoted rejection of innovation in sociological, biological, and pharmacological fields because they threaten ingroup thinking. It all a ploy to prevent the cure in effort to bring down Trump. Wodun you should not listen to them listen to the president he is the only one that cares about you all the rest just want to replace you. I can personally guarantee the presidents suggestion will kill and disinfect what ever virus you have. You should try it in the words of better man than either of us “What you got to lose?”, and don’t forget the use of Shortwave UV on yourself those frequencies eliminates the virus best. </sarcasm>