The story so far:
BBC, 18 September 2009: "Research commissioned by the Department of Health reported in July 2009 that that the number of heart attacks in England and Wales have been reduced by ten per cent since the ban came in. In Scotland there's been an even bigger effect with heart attacks down 14 per cent."
BBC, 21 September 2009: "Smoking bans cut the number of heart attacks in Europe and North America by up to a third, two studies report."
BBC, 9 December 2009: "Dr Jewell's annual report... 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."
Today's episode:
BBC, 9 June 2010: "There were 1,200 fewer hospital admissions for heart attacks in England in the year after July 2007 - when the smoking ban came in, research suggests. While the 2.4% drop was less dramatic than that reported in some areas where similar bans have been introduced, the figures suggest it saved the NHS £8.4m."
It's still all lies and distortion, as Snowdon explains, but hey. And at least today's episode doesn't feature the usual rent-a-quotes from fakecharities like British Lung Foundation, ASH, CRUK etc.
Even though the world went mad
42 minutes ago
14 comments:
Erm Mark, did you mean 2010 instead of 2001? But get your point. More or less the same as the Indy that wants more nannying on the basis of heart attack figures. See Raewald and an englismans castle.
I don't think we need studies to prove the harmful affects of smoking. Go visit your local hospital and see all those hooked up to respirators fighting for their life!!!
The Choice to accept a risk seems to be an alien concept to your neo-puritan commentator.
I found a chart from the BMJ report into this:-
http://www.bmj.com/content/vol340/issuejun08_1/images/large/simm707158.f1_default.jpeg
Notice something? The trends are barely different. Perhaps slightly down, but if you took out the smoking ban, I'll bet you'd still get most of that 2.4% reduction.
I'll use another link: http://tinyurl.com/368uwyk
I can't wait for the punch-up when the healthy eating lobby start claiming credit for the same statistics.
I shouldn't be at all surprised if Sport for All and their ilk tried to muscle in too - the pressure to justify their existence is mounting...
" Green E-Cigarette said...
I don't think we need studies to prove the harmful affects of smoking. Go visit your local hospital and see all those hooked up to respirators fighting for their life!!!
9 June 2010 08:32"
I went...very little evidence to see there in terms of your irrationality goggles.
I would hate to be so petty as to point out that as well as being the type of useless fuckwit who conflates baseless emotional special pleading with reasoned argument you are also fundamentally dishonest however...
w/v ratiori...I'm sure there's the germ of a word there.
Why would an E-cig fan try to drive a wedge between people who have chosen different ways to cope with the ban? I smell an agent provocateur! Anyway real scientific studies don't set out to prove a specific thing, they set out to find the truth. For the truth you do need a study, not emotive divel.
George, Facebook ASH to Ashes
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=122405704449762&v=wall
2.4%..........probably natural variation year on year. Certainly of no significance. There was a downward trend before smoking legislation was mooted. Probably because diabetes is better controlled and the wider use of statins as preventatives. Maybe people are reducing their salt intake too. Maybe obesity isn't as bad as the old government said.
They imply that second hand smoke causes heart attacks. FFS!!! This is ridiculous and there is no scientific study to support it.
i one saw the incidence of candidiasis in humans correlated with the increase in Japanese shipping during the 1960s. If you look hard enough and play with the numbers you can generate all sorts of spurious associations.
TBY, good spot, I have amended.
GEC, I refer you to the comments made by my noble friends AC1, Gilgamesh and George (ta for the link, George!).
JT, I refer you to the comments made by my noble friend McH.
Statins as preventatives of cardiovascular disease I might add.
MW - I'm glad you bother to listen to all this statistics tripe, I can't be arsed any longer. I know it's going to be bullshit. I know it's going to be all about the justification of more authoritarianism. So, I just menatlly switch off. Sorry.
Ch, I am happy to report I don't have the faintest idea what a statin is or what candidiasis is.
L, the stat's are bollocks, but it's interesting to note how the claim becomes less and less exaggerated over time. Soon they'll be claiming a 1% reduction etc.
Has anyone told the scriptwriters on The Archers?
They've just killed off the character Sid Perks , landlord of the Bull, with a heart attack, and he was a non-smoking exercise nut. In fact, he collapsed while jogging.
Post a Comment