The bansturbators hadn't run this story for a while, so they give it another outing today. To be fair, they appear have decided that the previous claims that heart attacks have fallen by over a tenth or up to a third since the smoking ban were laughable and are going in low this time:
Dr Jewell's annual report Preventing the Preventable pointed to statistics which showed the number of hospital admissions for heart attacks in 2007/2008 had fallen by 3.7% on the previous year, down from 4,324 to 4,164. He said although the decline could not be wholly attributed to the smoking ban, some studies suggested at least some of the reduction was due to the ban on smoking in public places, which was brought in in April 2007.
What is still laughable is the claim that "smoking still cost the NHS £127 for each person". Assuming a quarter of people smoke, that means the average smoker requires treatment costing £508 a year. Seeing as the average smoker pays far, far more than that in tobacco duty and extra VAT, that means that smokers are net contributors to the NHS budget.
I'm a bit disappointed that the BBC didn't follow their proper template - they normally get a smattering of rent-a-quotes from the usual suspects (ASH) and then right at the end, a government spokesman agrees that more must be done. This time, they put the quote from the government spokesman first, ASH aren't mentioned at all and the only sort-of-fakecharity, The British Lung Foundation is only mentioned in the last two sentences.
UPDATE: via Dick P in the commments, Velvet Glove Iron Fist points out that heart attacks actually rose during the period, surprise, surprise.
Wednesday, 9 December 2009
"Smoking ban cuts heart attacks"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Translation: Dr Tony Jewell yesterday explained why we should continue to pay his wages.
'Without me there is nobody to aggregate vague press releases and poorly supported claims about various initiatives. Without this it would be impossible to confirm how brilliantly the Welsh Assembly is doing, and yet at the same time to agree the Welsh are a fat, ignorant, half-dead lot, totally incapable of deciding what to eat for themselves, isn't it, and in dire need of being lectured to, poked and monitored by various pretend-charities, who have got to at least try to stand up their press releases, look you boyo.'
I've long been aware that my extra taxes for smoking far outweigh the possible drain on the NHS for treating me ( as averaged out among smokers ).
The usual figures are around £3Bpa Govt. figure for costs to NHS ( up to £5B by alarmists ) against £9B pa revenue so I want a bloody refund ta very much.
And, as they ceaselessly point out, I will die sooner thus relieving the Government of paying my pension and treatment for whichever other exotic condition might have got me had I lived longer.
What's more, his smoking ban heart attacks figures are one big stinking lie.
Odd that he didn't care to mention the substantial rise in heart attacks in 2008/9.
The heart attacks nonsense is so obviously untrue that it is hard to believe that any actual scientists ever actually believed it in the first place.
It wouldn't surprise me if the actual studies the reports and press releases are based upon are a lot more restrained in their claims of a causal link.
A 3.7% change on a sample of 4,000 people is not statistically credible. It could be ramdom. There is no evidence to prove otherwise, just like there is no evidence to suggest it has anything to do with the smoking ban.
WOAR, aha, that makes more sense.
Ross, Bruce, follow DP's link!
@banned
smoking isnt outlawed is it?
"The heart attacks nonsense is so obviously untrue that it is hard to believe that any actual scientists ever actually believed it in the first place." Climate Science to you, matey.
I have looked at many sites on this subject and not come across a site such as yours which tells everyone everything that they need to know. I have bookmarked your site. Can anyone else suggest any other related topics that I can look for to find out further information?
Post a Comment