There were some studies that observed a low prevalence of current smokers hospitalized for Covid, compared to smoking rates in the population, and hypothesized that nicotine might be having a beneficial effect. On the other hand, it obviously stands to reason that having stronger lungs would be better for outcomes of a respiratory disease. I'm pretty sure there's been no definitive research findings one way or the other.
It also stands to reason that not developing a respiratory illness at all is better than having a better outcome when you do. Note that data that doesn't "stand to reason" is super interesting as science. There are a lot of such studies now; the Nature article cited above has a whole list of them. The authors' argument of "the myth" is basically "smoking is still bad because smokers have worse outcomes if they're hospitalized for COVID, also smoking is bad, mkay" which is just avoiding the point.
You and they are right that it is not clear whether smokers have an overall benefit or not with regards to the whole chain of causality from contracting COVID to hospitalization to "worse outcomes"
> The authors' argument of "the myth" is basically "smoking is still bad because smokers have worse outcomes if they're hospitalized for COVID, also smoking is bad, mkay" which is just avoiding the point.
The author engages the data directly, as well as broader context about smoking and infectious disease. Now, they may be lying by either commission or omission, for all I know, but the above does not accurately characterize the piece.
They give two methodological nitpicks, which is not really "engaging the data directly". One is basically, there are other paradoxical results in with this paradoxical result, so obviously this paradoxical result can't be true! Really, even in the COPD patients they saw the same result, which means it's obviously wrong. Right? Right?
The other one is fair enough: self-reporting has its limits. But what are they really?
Let's do the thought experiment: if the converse result were being reported, i.e. non-smokers were having worse outcomes than expected, but growing evidence showed smokers developed serious cases more frequently than non-smokers, would that article be any different? I think you could just write it paint-by-numbers. Also, kids, don't start smoking no matter how cool you think it is, mkay?
It could be related to smokers spending more relative time outside, since covid-19 seemed to not do well in fresh air and sunlight (significantly faster oxidation and high susceptibility to uv.) Some newer variants seem to be surviving outdoors a little better, but we'll need months to see reliable data.
It could also be related to buildup from smoking coating the lungs and reducing the available points of infection, which in not sure you want. All that black tar and crud... I'd rather get covid.
"Oh yes, smoking is very bad and only very bad people do it and they will die and you will live forever if you don't smoke. Is it a happy story now?
Please don't accuse me of "thinking" anything I didn't say."
I didn't say smokers "beat the 'rona" and I'm not arguing for the virtue of smoking. I also do think the moral tone in "what is this?" is childish and inappropriately peckish.
