Smokers and Covid-19: Regular cigarette and e-cigarette users face 5,000 fine for lighting up in public

[richard_smith237]

Just now, Matzzon said:

There is a possibility that some particles in exhaled smoke, that ain´t included in exhaled air, might carry the virus longer and quicker. 

I agree... there’s also possibility that it doesn’t. There is also a possibility that eating spicy food causes us to exhale more strongly and thus there is elevated risk on an extremely microscopic level. 

 

As mentioned earlier, there are far greater factors which are far more effective which can be concentrated on rather than spending effort, time and resources on something which the potential for benefit in viral transmission prevention is debatable at best.

[JASON THAI]

I am waiting for the fines for beathing as you can spread the virus 555

[AussieBob18]

11 hours ago, DrTuner said:

What?!?! Smoke carrying SARS-CoV-2, well that's a new one. Sure it can aerosolize but this is the very first time I've seen anybody suggest it'd adhere to the smoke particles. 

 

If they continue on this brainfart reasoning, they'll notice the air is full of PM2.5 and PM10 particles. Oooops.

Maybe does adhere and maybe not - no research either way that I could find.

 

But we can only hope they finally see smoke as a serious health hazard and do something - other than media statements.

 

[Matzzon]

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Social distancing has everything to do with this... It is what should be concentrated on. The smoking issue is just a distraction from other factors which are far more effective. 

 

The ‘Microscopic chance’ (which you initially mentioned) is irrelevant, as the spread of the virus is inevitable. It cannot be stopped, it can only be slowed such that when it does spread medical facilities are not overwhelmed. 

 

There are far greater issues involved in slowing down the rate of spread such as limiting the movement of people, isolation, social distancing, quarantine, cleaning our hands, cleaning deliveries etc... this smoking issue (even if correct and carries a microscopic chance) is a distraction from the genuine, serious and effective measures which require primary attention. 

 

Making an announcement such as this is extremely clumsy when a unified effort should be applied by those in positions to make media announcements and impact the actions of the populace to follow the more readily accepted ‘spread prevention methods'. 

 

 

I just guess you are a smoker, that just don´t want to listen to common sense. Also probably do not care about that people simply don´t want your smoke or even the smell of it in the air they breed. However, my discussion with you is over. You just gonna make me mad. It´s my relaxing sunday, with a couple of beers. So, I leave it with that.

Also never said that there are no greater issues that are involved. That is just something you use to deviate from the focus of the discussion. Smoking is something that is connected to a lot of lung diseases and respiratory problems. It affects the smoker as well as it contributes to passive smoking which also is known to cause respiratory problems. The virus attacks the breathing system and causes respiratory problem as possible death related to that. It´s well know for long that people that have respiratory problems will be in a greater risk then a healthy person. Yeah, as I said. I rest my case.

[richard_smith237]

3 minutes ago, Don Mega said:

I smoke and do cough occasionally, I coughed in Foodland yesterday (I covered my mouth) and the reaction from other shoppers was akin to me dropping strides and laying cable there and then on the floor !!

 

I chuckled heartily.

 

On a flight last month I’d been stifling a cough... The relief was palpable as someone else coughed... Not just me then !!! so I coughed then someone else did, followed by someone else. 

 

The realisation came that coughing is quite normal and not specifically symptomatic of any illness.

 

The key issue is ‘how we cough’ i.e. into tissue, our elbow etc...  

 

Now we will have a proportion of society, half of which is more stupid than the other half who will judge and potentially react, and when someone coughs they become a momentary social pariah !!!

 

 

[Matzzon]

14 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

Depending on the exhaled droplet size, it can travel up to 1 metre, with normal expiration, coughing of course could increase that distance

Smokers often cough even without infection, and often do not cover mouth when coughing

Why have you been quoting richard_smith237, and put his comment under my name? Please edit your post, or face the consequence.

[Matzzon]

22 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

This should have been done and enforced a decade ago, smoking compromises lung function, this being a respiratory disease, greater risk of complications, good public health measure.

This current situation will change society has acted for some time with new laws being enacted, which will not be recinded. There will be less feedom of travel into the future I think as well as changes in economic policies

Again, you have posted someone else words under my name. Are you serious? Learn how to use the quote function before you post more.

[Don Mega]

3 minutes ago, Matzzon said:

Why have you been quoting richard_smith237, and put his comment under my name? Please edit your post, or face the consequence.

Ive no dog in this fight but am curious as to what the consequence might be ?

[bkk6060]

Cigarettes should be banned in the entire world.

What good do they do for humanity but put money into the companies pockets.

Disgusting habit.

[Don Mega]

2 minutes ago, bkk6060 said:

Cigarettes should be banned in the entire world.

What good do they do for humanity but put money into the companies pockets.

Disgusting habit.

Ahhh, but there is nothing more enjoyable after sex than lighting up a ciggie.

[WorriedNoodle]

7 minutes ago, Don Mega said:

Ahhh, but there is nothing more enjoyable after sex than lighting up a ciggie.

You must be doing it wrong.

[Don Mega]

1 minute ago, WorriedNoodle said:

You must be doing it wrong.

I wipe on the curtain first.

[Matzzon]

20 minutes ago, Don Mega said:

Ive no dog in this fight but am curious as to what the consequence might be ?

Just a report to moderation. That might result in vacation for a while, which might not be what the poster wish for.

Edited March 22, 2020 by Matzzon

[alexth]

Oh, Jesus! What’s the penalty for government brain farts? 

[adammike]

11 hours ago, Youlike said:

Chiang mai is in or near the top 10 of most polluted cities worldwide, so the virus must be happy to spread there...i bet the air in italy is far far cleaner than in chiang mai.

Not now what with all those cremations.

Too soon?

Edited March 22, 2020 by adammike
Delete

[richard_smith237]

20 minutes ago, Matzzon said:

I just guess you are a smoker, that just don´t want to listen to common sense. Also probably do not care about that people simply don´t want your smoke or even the smell of it in the air they breed. However, my discussion with you is over. You just gonna make me mad. It´s my relaxing sunday, with a couple of beers. So, I leave it with that.

Also never said that there are no greater issues that are involved. That is just something you use to deviate from the focus of the discussion. Smoking is something that is connected to a lot of lung diseases and respiratory problems. It affects the smoker as well as it contributes to passive smoking which also is known to cause respiratory problems. The virus attacks the breathing system and causes respiratory problem as possible death related to that. It´s well know for long that people that have respiratory problems will be in a greater risk then a healthy person. Yeah, as I said. I rest my case.

What case are you resting? you’ve changed your argument to ‘smokers are at greater risk’ (I agree). But I don’t think smokers are a greater risk in the spread of a virus through exhaling smoke / vape.

 

But if you believe attention to should be directed to smokers and that smoking should be banned because it increases the risk of viral transmission in the exhaled smoke / vape we disagree - there is no evidence to suggest this.

 

If your lack of facts makes you mad and you struggle to argue with common sense then by all means, walk away and enjoy your Sunday. 

 

I still think smoking should be banned in public. I don’t smoke, but have occasionally in the past. 

 

I just don’t believe shooting from the hip should and hysteria should be used to ban something, use intelligence, in this case, smoking in public areas impacts non-smokers and should be restricted to designated smoking areas. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[petedk]

I've just been trying to find some proof of this guys statements. All I can find is that smoking and vaping may increase the smoker's chances of getting serious lung infections.

 

It seems that many of these ministers will use any excuse to stop people smoking and drinking alcohol. I don't smoke but I like a glass of wine now and then with my food.

 

Edit: Anyway, can this guy just say that people can be fined 5000 Baht? I can't find article 42 that he refers to.

Edited March 22, 2020 by petedk

[Matzzon]

10 minutes ago, Don Mega said:

Ahhh, but there is nothing more enjoyable after sex than lighting up a ciggie.

Yes, there is. Try do it all over again, and you will see what I mean. 

[alexth]

10 minutes ago, Don Mega said:

Ahhh, but there is nothing more enjoyable after sex than lighting up a ciggie.

The poster might not be getting any ????

[Don Mega]

2 minutes ago, alexth said:

The poster might not be getting any ????

Much to my missus's chagrin ive thaifreindly.com as my browser home page.

[dinsdale]

I've heard this question asked and anwered by several experts, by this I mean real experts not this fool, and the answer is 100% the same. NO. Indeed aerosol transmition is very, very unlikely. So one day we have the brilliance that existing anti-virals will save Thailand and now today's outstanding ignorance of reality.

[monkfish]

7 hours ago, Monomial said:

 

Sadly very little information here. The paper is hidden behind a paywall but I was able to get at it via SciHub. There is absolutely ZERO in the entire paper about its genuine effects on viruses.  It only talks about bacteria. The only mention in the entire paper about viruses is the following paragraph:

 

"Propylene glycol vapor was also found to exert a lethal or at least an inactivating effect on the virus of influenza. This was determined by tests in which the presence of the glycol vapor in concentration of 1:3,000,000 was shown to protect mice completely against infection with amounts of air-borne influenza virus that produced death regularly in the control animals (19)."

 

If you then look at footnote 19 it references "Robertson, O. H., Loosli, C. G., Puck, T. T., Bigg, E., and Miller, B. F., Science, 1941, 94, 612" which is apparently the only real paper:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17740060

 

I also obtained that paper, and on page 613 of Science published on Dec. 26, 1941, there is a description of the test they ran to make these statements. Unfortunately, it wasn't propylene glycol in the lungs that they tested, but creating an enclosed atmosphere where Propylene Glycol vapor was mixed uniformly throughout the entire chamber.  The mechanism by which it inhibited the virus was never investigated, but the authors suspected that virus particles hitting a glycol drop could swallow the virus and neutralize it in some way. Again, this was done *outside* the body in the air, and required a very high concentration of propylene glycol to have any effect.

 

Not saying there is no way this hypothesis could have some validity, but this paper certainly offers no support that there could be any benefit from it in vivo.   You would need to do a real, proper study before making any claims.

 

There are some more studies try the pdf on that page.

"Propylene glycol vapor was also found to exert a lethal or at least an inactivating effect on the virus of influenza. This was determined by tests in which the presence of the glycol vapor in concentration of 1:3,000,000 was shown to protect mice completely against infection with amounts of air-borne influenza virus that produced death regularly in the control animals (19)."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2135271/

Edited March 22, 2020 by monkfish

[Rookiescot]

50 minutes ago, Matzzon said:

There is a possibility that some particles in exhaled smoke, that ain´t included in exhaled air, might carry the virus longer and quicker. 

Based on what evidence?

[Matzzon]

3 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

I still think smoking should be banned in public. I don’t smoke, but have occasionally in the past. 

 

I just don’t believe shooting from the hip should and hysteria should be used to ban something, use intelligence, in this case, smoking in public areas impacts non-smokers and should be restricted to designated smoking areas.

First you think smoking should be banned in public. After that it should be allowed in designated areas. Where are those areas? Are they not in public? Are the smokers in the designated areas not a part of the public? Is it possible that you are condoning the gathering of smokers, where one could be carrying the virus an infect other smokers in the designated areas? Is there no other group of people in public that are walking by the designated smoking areas? 

As you clearly can read it´s not hysteria. Never get hysteric, and take the card dealt to me as they come. It´s not any shooting from the hip. I don´t believe in that due to the big possibility to miss the target. I only got for success with one shot. Regarding the use of your sharp intelligence. Can´t you just humour me, and try to sort my questions out? As you say, smoking should be totally banned, except in the comfort of your own balcony when the neighbour is not out at the same time. Or your own fenced yard.

[lamyai3]

46 minutes ago, JASON THAI said:

I am waiting for the fines for beathing as you can spread the virus 555

On the upside, you can only get fined for exhaling. Breathing in is still allowed. 

[Matzzon]

14 minutes ago, Don Mega said:

Much to my missus's chagrin ive thaifreindly.com as my browser home page.

Was that you explaining, why not getting any?

[essox essox]

fine is 30 toilet rolls !!! a wai and 100 baht in money !!!

[DannyCarlton]

7 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Based on what evidence?

"The World According to Mazzaton", a gripping work of fiction.

[Matzzon]

8 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Based on what evidence?

A possibility hardly never connects to any evidence. Do you have any evidence that it´s not possible. No, I don´t think so. Then ask yourself what is best in a situation of a virus outbreak. Embrace the possibilities or disregard them?

[Matzzon]

4 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

"The World According to Mazzaton", a gripping work of fiction.

Thanks for you devotion, Sir.

Edited March 22, 2020 by Matzzon