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

[moontang]

[richard_smith237]

1 hour ago, Matzzon said:

2 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Simple question for a simple answer:

Is there any evidence to suggest that exhaled smoke / vape carries a virus any further than regular exhaled breath?

Simple question as an answer the asks for a simple answer:
Is there any evidence that suggest the opposite?

 

After you got your head around that, I will refer to post #119

OK, so you can’t answer my question, or rather you are avoiding to answer your question because you know there is no evidence. 

 

Equally so, there is no evidence to suggest exhaled smoke / vape doesn’t carries a virus further than regular exhaled breath. 

 

If the absence of evidence that smoke / vape doesn’t carry a virus further than regular exhaled breath your only argument, then your argument is fundamentally flawed to the point of being pedantic. 

[Monomial]

6 hours ago, Matzzon said:

You shouldn´t read such a complicated document if you can´t connect the dots of probability. And, if there is even a microscopic chance, why take it and why potentially risk other peoples wellbeing?

 

Excuse me??? I've been reading scientific papers for my entire career, and probably understand more about probability than most everyone on this board. 

 

The problem here is there is NOTHING in that paper at all (and remember the research is from the 1940's) that deals with what happens in vivo. There is absolutely no reason to believe that an unexplained effect which occurs OUTSIDE the body, and potentially traps and filters viral particles from ever even entering the body, would do anything for viral particles INSIDE the body. It could in fact, make it worse.

 

I am not risking other people's wellbeing. I am trying to help, because I know most of you are completely incapable of actually reading a paper like that (its behind a paywall) and understanding it (you need to be a skilled researcher).  There are too many flat earthers on the internet who believe anything that is said because they have no basis to see the part of the iceberg under the water. They see just the tip and say "see how tiny that is? There is no way it could be dangerous." 

 

I am not saying you can not do research if you want to investigate a hypothesis about the effects of smoking propylene glycol on viruses. I am saying however, that there is no support in that paper for your thesis.

[richard_smith237]

1 hour ago, Matzzon said:

No, there isn´t. That is just living in your imagination and you do best in keeping it there before you show too much of your true self.

Only one person guilty of this on this thread so far Matzzon.

 

Anyone will concede that there is no evidence to suggest that the risk of viral spread is increased in exhaled smoke / vape, in much the same manner there is no evidence to suggest that the wearing a hat increases the risk of viral spread.

 

The absence of any scientific information on this subject suggests that no one (of a qualified scientific background) believes studying such is feasible because doing so pointless. 

 

It seems the only people who believe that Smoke and Vape carry virus any more efficiently and further than regular exhaled air are yourself and a crack-pot publicity hungry official in the infections diseases department. 

 

 

 

 

[mauGR1]

8 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

If the absence of evidence that smoke / vape doesn’t carry a virus further than regular exhaled breath your only argument, then your argument is fundamentally flawed to the point of being pedantic. 

I think that what @Matzzon is trying to say, is that he doesn't like smokers

[Don Mega]

36 minutes ago, Misterwhisper said:

Mr. Khajornsak: With every single breath people exhale (or when they speak) they omit microscopic particles of body fluid that dissipate "far and wide" in the air surrounding them and - if they are infected - carry the virus.

 

There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that suggests e-vapor or cigarette smoke particles would carry the virus "farer and wider" than normal breathing or speaking would.

 

What do you propose? That we all must stop breathing now? Smokers and non-smokers alike? 

Hopefully Mr. Khajornsak stops breathing.

[Don Mega]

8 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

The absence of any scientific information on this subject suggests that no one (of a qualified scientific background) believes studying such is feasible because doing so pointless. 

 

And yet Matzzon claims to have proof.... proof that he is very shy to post !!

[richard_smith237]

3 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

16 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

If the absence of evidence that smoke / vape doesn’t carry a virus further than regular exhaled breath your only argument, then your argument is fundamentally flawed to the point of being pedantic. 

I think that what @Matzzon is trying to say, is that he doesn't like smokers

I don’t like smokers either (well, I have a few friends who smoke so that’s not quite true), but I do hate smokers who have no regard for those around them. Thats not all of them, but some do and they give all smokers a poor name. 

 

That said, I don’t agree with unfounded sanctimonious stupidity a sound basis to ban something, whether I agree with that something or not. 

 

 

 

[Matzzon]

3 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Only one person guilty of this on this thread so far Matzzon.

 

Anyone will concede that there is no evidence to suggest that the risk of viral spread is increased in exhaled smoke / vape, in much the same manner there is no evidence to suggest that the wearing a hat increases the risk of viral spread.

 

The absence of any scientific information on this subject suggests that no one (of a qualified scientific background) believes studying such is feasible because doing so pointless. 

 

It seems the only people who believe that Smoke and Vape carry virus any more efficiently and further than regular exhaled air are yourself and a crack-pot publicity hungry official in the infections diseases department. 

 

 

 

 

Oh dear, are you going to try to get a grip of things and don´t deny the truth in front of yourself and your keyboard. If the risk is in the exhaled smoke or if it is in smoking and passive smoking itself, has no relevance. There is evidence that smoking and passive smoking causes respiratory problems to respiratory disease. If a person contracts only respiratory problems due to irresponsible smokers out of passive smoking, then it´s also evidence that the virus most probably will hit persons with respiratoty problems, diseases and old age harder. Might even cause death.

So, just stop you base less babbling about how insignificant smoking and irresponsible smokers is in your opinion. You were comparing my posts with semantics. So, what are you going on with then? Smoking is the cause of diseases even with only passive smoking, so quite naturally it creates a bigger risk to contract a virus that attacks weak and those with lower immune system in an outbreak.

 

Simply doesn´t matter how the virus is delivered. With the virus directly in exhaled smoke or as a part of over time delivering a lower immune system and respiratory diseases to the ones coming in contact with it. It´s the end result that counts. Therefore smoking is a thing people should go and do at a great distance from others, due to that it IS posing a greater risk for people to contract the virus. END!

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

I don’t like smokers either (well, I have a few friends who smoke so that’s not quite true), but I do hate smokers who have no regard for those around them. Thats not all of them, but some do and they give all smokers a poor name. 

 

That said, I don’t agree with unfounded sanctimonious stupidity a sound basis to ban something, whether I agree with that something or not. 

 

 

 

Most of the smokers are not idiots who go around disturbing non-smokers.

I also hate noise and pollution, yet i'm not pestering people for that.

Yeah, sanctimonious stupidity is awful.

[Don Mega]

2 minutes ago, Matzzon said:

Oh dear, are you going to try to get a grip of things and don´t deny the truth in front of yourself and your keyboard. If the risk is in the exhaled smoke or if it is in smoking and passive smoking itself, has no relevance. There is evidence that smoking and passive smoking causes respiratory problems to respiratory disease. If a person contracts only respiratory problems due to irresponsible smokers out of passive smoking, then it´s also evidence that the virus most probably will hit persons with respiratoty problems, diseases and old age harder. Might even cause death.

So, just stop you base less babbling about how insignificant smoking and irresponsible smokers is in your opinion. You were comparing my posts with semantics. So, what are you going on with then? Smoking is the cause of diseases even with only passive smoking, so quite naturally it creates a bigger risk to contract a virus that attacks weak and those with lower immune system in an outbreak.

 

Simply doesn´t matter how the virus is delivered. With the virus directly in exhaled smoke or as a part of over time delivering a lower immune system and respiratory diseases to the ones coming in contact with it. It´s the end result that counts. Therefore smoking is a thing people should go and do at a great distance from others, due to that it IS posing a greater risk for people to contract the virus. END!

Do you have proof the risk of contracting Covid-19 is greater if in the vicinity of a smoker ?

[Matzzon]

28 minutes ago, Monomial said:

I am not saying you can not do research if you want to investigate a hypothesis about the effects of smoking propylene glycol on viruses. I am saying however, that there is no support in that paper for your thesis.

Excuse me. It´s no thesis. It´s just a precaution out of the reason of possibility. Something that you clearly state that you have no clue about. Sure I have no evidence for, you have actually no evidence against. That´s the word possibility. So, there we stand with the only word left. Is there a possibility that you or me can be wrong? The answer is: YES, there is! Because, nobody knows 100 % who is wrong and who is right. Is it then most wrong or right to pose the question if there is a possibility, and ask that people take precautions thereafter? If you look back on historical research as you seem to be very interested in, you might even be able to draw the conclusion that many life in other situations could have been save if people had been taken precaution to some of the potential possibilities they chose to disregard.

[Matzzon]

17 minutes ago, Don Mega said:

And yet Matzzon claims to have proof.... proof that he is very shy to post !!

Yes, the proof I claim to have is that smoking causes respiratory diseases, and that combined with this virus will lead to an easier way for the virus to infect people.

[DannyCarlton]

1 minute ago, Matzzon said:

Excuse me. It´s no thesis. It´s just a precaution out of the reason of possibility. Something that you clearly state that you have no clue about. Sure I have no evidence for, you have actually no evidence against. That´s the word possibility. So, there we stand with the only word left. Is there a possibility that you or me can be wrong? The answer is: YES, there is! Because, nobody knows 100 % who is wrong and who is right. Is it then most wrong or right to pose the question if there is a possibility, and ask that people take precautions thereafter? If you look back on historical research as you seem to be very interested in, you might even be able to draw the conclusion that many life in other situations could have been save if people had been taken precaution to some of the potential possibilities they chose to disregard.

Judging by your posting history, the smart money is on Monomial being right and you being wrong.

[Don Mega]

1 minute ago, Matzzon said:

Yes, the proof I claim to have is that smoking causes respiratory diseases, and that combined with this virus will lead to an easier way for the virus to infect people.

So your proof is your dribbling's you post here, any of that backed by any actual scientific findings ?

[Matzzon]

1 hour ago, Rookiescot said:

Physician heal thyself.

You have somehow managed, without a shred of evidence, to proclaim as fact that smoking increases the risk of others catching corona.

Now I was trying to be diplomatic but now I am going to call it for what it is.

It is a lie.

Referring you to post #159. Just tired of rewriting things for no reason.

[Rookiescot]

1 minute ago, Matzzon said:

Yes, the proof I claim to have is that smoking causes respiratory diseases, and that combined with this virus will lead to an easier way for the virus to infect people.

OK so a cigarette tip burns at 900 degC and has a filter on the end.

Now you show me how a virus is going to get through that.

So there we have proof that by inhaling through a cigarette I am actively protecting myself from the corona that YOU are breathing out.   

[RJRS1301]

Just now, Don Mega said:

So your proof is your dribbling's you post here, any of that backed by any actual scientific findings ?

Goodness me he said  "possibilty"

[Don Mega]

Just now, RJRS1301 said:

Goodness me he said  "possibilty"

so its nothing but heresay or personal opinion then ?

[DannyCarlton]

6 minutes ago, Matzzon said:

Yes, the proof I claim to have is that smoking causes respiratory diseases, and that combined with this virus will lead to an easier way for the virus to infect people.

Only applies to smokers (if true). Also the latest research shows that both the likelyhood of contracting the virus and the severity of symptoms are linked to levels of exposure. Which is why my daughter and her husband, who work in ER in the UK, are resigned to the fact that they will catch Covid-19 at some point.

 

 

Edited March 22, 2020 by DannyCarlton

[Rookiescot]

Just now, Matzzon said:

Referring you to post #159. Just tired of rewriting things for no reason.

All you are doing is repeating your own baseless assertion the people who smoke are more contagious than people who do not.

As someone else pointed out. Does wearing a hat make you more or less contagious? 

[Matzzon]

1 hour ago, Don Mega said:

Care to post it up ?

Already explained that in post #159. If you need reports it´s all over Internet, and you know it.

[Matzzon]

1 minute ago, Rookiescot said:

All you are doing is repeating your own baseless assertion the people who smoke are more contagious than people who do not.

As someone else pointed out. Does wearing a hat make you more or less contagious? 

No but spreading something that causes respiratory diseases makes you more contagious. 

[Don Mega]

1 minute ago, Matzzon said:

Already explained that in post #159. If you need reports it´s all over Internet, and you know it.

only thing in post #159 is your usual baseless <deleted>.

 

If you have actual scientific proven facts to back your claims why not just post them up rather keeping this charade up.

[Matzzon]

4 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

Only applies to smokers (if true). Also the latest research shows that both the likelyhood of contracting the virus and the severity of symptoms are linked to levels of exposure. Which is why my daughter and her husband, who work in ER in the UK, are resigned to the fact that they will catch Covid-19 at some point.

 

 

Nice that they needed a lot of research to grasp that the more exposure the greater risk. Do you have a cost estimate for that obvious research, Sir?

[Rinrada]

Its updated from 2018....No more smoking in public in Thailand..thats about it...

Published 

1 year ago on November 6, 2018

 

https://thethaiger.com/news/national/no-more-smoking-in-public-in-thailand

 

FIO....Section 42 of the Tobacco Product Control Act B.E. 2560

 

Proscribed by the Minister upon recommendation of the Committee. Chapter 5 Protection of Non-Smoker’s Health r Section 41.

 

The Minister upon recommendation of the Committee shall have the power to prescribe the types and names of public areas, workplaces and vehicles, any part thereof or the whole, as non-smoking areas.

The Minister upon recommendation of the Committee may prescribe smoking areas within the non-smoking areas under paragraph one.

Section 42 No one shall smoke in the non-smoking area, except in the smoking area designated under Section 41, paragraph two

[Matzzon]

8 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

OK so a cigarette tip burns at 900 degC and has a filter on the end.

Now you show me how a virus is going to get through that.

So there we have proof that by inhaling through a cigarette I am actively protecting myself from the corona that YOU are breathing out.   

Now you turned it around. Incredible! We were talking about exhaling and to affect other peoples defence system by smoking around non smokers. We were not discussing that smokers will get infected easier. If that were the case I couldn´t care less. It´s YOU when you smoke around people that have a negative effect on your surrounding which is innocent.

[Matzzon]

12 minutes ago, Don Mega said:

So your proof is your dribbling's you post here, any of that backed by any actual scientific findings ?

So, okey! Your stance is that cigarettes are good for you. Great! Up to you, but walk away from other innocent people when you wish to poison yourself.

[Don Mega]

Just now, Matzzon said:

So, okey! Your stance is that cigarettes are good for you. Great! Up to you, but walk away from other innocent people when you wish to poison yourself.

where in my post did you take away I said cigarettes are good for you ?

 

how you going on that factual evidence to back your claims ?

[Matzzon]

16 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

Judging by your posting history, the smart money is on Monomial being right and you being wrong.

Okey, so now you go over to betting. You were talking about scientific proof, right? Are you then aware of that people that are betting most of the times are losers?