Drop in child asthma since smoking ban

Just read this on the toile... news and am quite pleased by it. Have a few friends who were brought up in a smokers environment who had asthma as kids and continue to suffer from it now. Nice to see the smoking ban having another quantifiable effect.
 
scorza said:
Has anyone here who was against the ban changed their mind?
Click to expand...

I'm sure a smoker will be along in a minute to say that they don't believe their is a correlation, that it's probably caused by something else, that they know a man who is 100 who smokes 60 a day etc. etc. ;)

HEADRAT
 
Redgie said:
Just read this on the toile... news and am quite pleased by it. Have a few friends who were brought up in a smokers environment who had asthma as kids and continue to suffer from it now. Nice to see the smoking ban having another quantifiable effect.
Click to expand...

I was never brought up in a smoking environment since father has severe asthma, but I do have it. Mine must be hereditary.

I am in favour of anything that reduces any future risk. Does this go some way to to stop people with children smoking? I bloody hope so. Its pretty much endangering the health of a child.
 
HEADRAT said:
I'm sure a smoker will be along in a minute to say that they don't believe their is a correlation, that it's probably caused by something else, that they know a man who is 100 who smokes 60 a day etc. etc. ;)

HEADRAT
Click to expand...

This is the highest rated comment.

Of course smoking is deleterous to health but one thing still puzzles me. Back in the 1970s when I was a child asthma was relatively rare (I remember two kids at school who had it) yet smoking was common and to do so around children was the norm. Yet nowadays, smoking rates have fallen but asthma seems more common. Now, one thing that correlates is the number of cars on the road.......
Click to expand...
 
Correlation does not equal causation. I would suggest that diagnosis rates of asthma probably goes some way to explaining that.
 
As with all statistics you need to compare similar samples.

You need to compare areas in which the average pollution levels have remained static (or at least adjust for it correctly) - certain dimensions can create an inherent bias within the data.

But I would assume that whoever did the research has already done this (but it won't get mentioned because the average reader wouldn't care) - but it's safe to assume that it's been done (dangerous assumption I know).

So while average air pollution level may be the a significant primary factor, smoking could be easily be another contributing factor - ergo an trend of increased air pollution is causing total asthma rates to rise, the reduction in smoking in public places has slowed the rate of increase in relation to the rise in air pollution (in theory)

TLDR version.

It's both smoking & air pollution.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
Correlation does not equal causation. I would suggest that diagnosis rates of asthma probably goes some way to explaining that.
Click to expand...

This. Asthma diagnoses prior to the 1970s were pretty woeful relative to today, with a "it's all in their head" kind of attitude, added to the diagnoses of mild Asthma being recognised and diagnosed as awareness and treatment increased.

And let's not ignore the fact that there are a myriad of contributing factors to Asthma, smoking is simply one of them.
 
Castiel said:
And let's not ignore the fact that there are a myriad of contributing factors to Asthma, smoking is simply one of them.
Click to expand...
Exactly, along with changes in the method of diagnosing & access to medical treatment it's difficult to draw direct comparisons.

It's silly for a person to suggest that just because more people smoked in the 70's & less people had asthma that the entire report is rubbish (as smoking is only one of a number of factors).

It's the same reasons as why comparing crime rates across long distances of time is notoriously difficult (as changes in detection occurred over the periods in question).
 
What has the 1970's got to do with that report? :confused:

The info looked at asthma rates with data from 2002 and saw a drop off (so I don't know what better detection rates has to do with a decrease in cases) in admissions after the smoking ban in 2007
 
Freakbro said:
What has the 1970's got to do with that report? :confused:

The info looked at asthma rates with data from 2002 and saw a drop off (so I don't know what better detection rates has to do with a decrease in cases) in admissions after the smoking ban in 2007
Click to expand...
It was in reply to the highest rated comment.

A person mentioned that more people smoked in the 70's & the asthma rates were lower.

Obviously a pretty sort-sighted observation as it ignores all of the other contributing factors (air pollution rates, detection rates etc).

It's similar to the "My nan smoked till she was 96 & my other nan who didn't smoke died at 62" argument - totally ignorant to the fact that exceptions do not disprove trends.

In reality the nan who died at 96 could have lived to 106 & the one who died at 62 could have died at 52 had the smoking being reversed - as with the OP's subject, smoking is only one factor with influences life expectancy.
 
Last edited:
Better detection rates, means more preventive measures, meaning a fall in hospital admissions. That's what this has followed, hospital admissions.

And no I still don't support the ban, or should I say partly oppose. Pubs should be able to do what they want, children shouldn't be in there and people are free to chose to go to a smoking or non smoking pub, they were starting to pop up just before the ban.
 
elmarko1234 said:
It was in reply to the highest rated comment.

A person mentioned that more people smoked in the 70's & the asthma rates were lower.

Obviously a pretty sort-sighted observation as it ignores all of the other contributing factors (air pollution rates, detection rates etc).

It's similar to the "My nan smoked till she was 96 & my other nan who didn't smoke died at 62" argument - totally ignorant to the fact that exceptions do not disprove trends.

In reality the nan who died at 96 could have lived to 106 & the one who died at 62 could have died at 52 had the smoking being reversed - as with the OP's subject, smoking is only one factor with influences life expectancy.
Click to expand...

Right...but wouldn't it be better to discuss what the report actually says/implies than some random, and incorrect, reply from joe public?
 
Glaucus said:
Better detection rates, means more preventive measures, meaning a fall in hospital admissions. That's what this has followed, hospital admissions.
Click to expand...

But they are analysing data from 2002 and from having a 2% increase year on year it suddenly dropped 12% in the first year following the smoking ban.

Please explain to me what drastic improvement in detection rates leading to better preventative measures happened suddenly in 2007?
 
Freakbro said:
Right...but wouldn't it be better to discuss what the report actually says/implies than some random, and incorrect, reply from joe public?
Click to expand...
:confused:

It was mentioned & discussed in the thread, some in support of the comment & others pointing out it's flaws.

As it's pretty indicative of the general public's ignorance of this kind of thing then yes I do believe it's worth people discussing if they so desire.

Not to mention on a forum people tend to post things & then others post in relation to those posts.

It's how we roll on here.

On a side note,

I'm not saying the report is wrong, just shooting down the most popular criticism of it - as are a few others in the thread.

We know the rates are down, assuming the data is sound then it's a fact (not a subjective point of view) - all the remains is the public's perception of the ban & how effective they believe it to be (which is what people are discussing).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom