Vapers shot down by ‘friendly’ fire

Headline in yesterday’s Telegraph:

‘Vapers up to 20pc more likely to spread the virus, study warns’

There are a number of interesting things about this report which is also online. The first, attributed to the ‘researchers’, appears to be a direct quote from the study:

“While there is currently no factual evidence [my emphasis] that pathogens have been spread through this route, it is entirely plausible that this should occur.”

The highlighted words are crucial to the story but, naturally, they didn’t appear until paragraph nine and almost certainly went unnoticed by many, especially those who read only the headline.

More interesting than that perhaps were the reported comments by Linda Bauld, Professor of Public Health at the University of Edinburgh.

A ubiquitous presence on TV and radio since the start of the pandemic, Bauld is one of the go to voices for all things Covid.

Readers of this blog however will know that she is not only a leading anti-smoking voice in the UK (and globally), she is also an advocate of e-cigarettes as a quit smoking aid and is seen by many vapers as a friendly face.

With that in mind I was interested to read her response to this “no factual evidence” study. According to the Telegraph:

[Bauld] said it was inadvisable to vape while waiting in queues, at bus stops or other places where people are at risk of encountering a "vape cloud".

She said it was safer to do it either at home or away from other people when outside.

“The device you use will definitely significantly affect how many little droplets you emit and how much virus might be carried on those," she added.

“The longer you spend in a room with someone, the much more significant the risk of transmission is."

I have suggested many times that vapers should not rely on the help of their so-called ‘friends’ in public health, and this is a classic example of why not.

Read her words closely and you will see that she is effectively saying it is “inadvisable” to vape in any place (indoors or out) where other people may be in relatively close proximity.

How else do you interpret her comment that it is inadvisable to vape anywhere people are at risk of encountering a "vape cloud". Does this mean pubs and clubs (when they re-open) too?

The use of the term “vape cloud” is problematic because many vapers stealth vape when in public or do it so discreetly bystanders are hardly aware they are vaping at all.

“Vape cloud” however conjures up the sort of image you see every time a newspaper or magazine publishes a report or feature about vaping but those cloud chasing images are unrepresentative of the vast majority of vapers.

I get that Bould tried to differentiate between different devices (“The device you use will definitely significantly affect how many little droplets you emit”) but that nuance will be lost on most people.

Furthermore by appearing to endorse a “no factual evidence” study whilst raising possible concerns about vaping in proximity to other people, Bauld is giving ammunition to those who would go further and ban it in public places.

In reality, of course, most smokers and vapers use their common sense when smoking or vaping in public. I’ve stood in many queues during the pandemic and I’ve never seen anyone smoking or vaping.

That doesn’t mean no-one is doing it but I can’t remember the last time I was directly exposed to a “vape cloud”. Can you?

Bauld probably knows that such incidents are rare. She must suspect too that the risk of catching Covid as a result of someone exhaling e-cigarette vapour in the open air is very small.

But instead of putting the risk in perspective her response insinuates something else which will undoubtedly fuel some people's belief that vaping should be banned in public places.

Interestingly, this is not the first time Bould has commented on this. In October last year she told the Metro newspaper it was “entirely plausible” that Covid-19 could be transmitted through vape clouds:

‘We don’t know anything about the transfer of the virus through either tobacco smoke or vape clouds.

‘But it is plausible that because people exhale vapour or second-hand smoke that the virus could be travelling in those particles. That is entirely plausible.’

See: Why you shouldn’t be vaping around other people or in enclosed spaces

Also quoted by Metro was Professor Caitlin Notley, senior lecturer at the University of East Anglia’s Norwich Medical School. Notley told the paper that “potentially someone infected with Covid-19 can exhale virus particles through vapour just as they would through their exhaled breath.”

'Plausible', 'potentially' ... Show us evidence!!

Notley, like Bauld, is a familiar face on the risk reduction circuit where she sometimes appears as a speaker or moderator, but it begs the thought, “With friends like these ...”

The problem is not that they are anti-vaping. Far from it.

The issue is that they appear to be pro-vaping only inasmuch as vaping isn’t smoking. In other words, it’s a means to an end (the so-called ‘smoke free’ world).

Ultimately, like most public health professionals (and academics), they are risk averse and even when there is “no factual evidence” of risk they revert to type.

That is why so few public health campaigners - even those who apparently have an open mind on e-cigarettes - speak out against excessive restrictions on vaping or vaping products.

Fuelled by the risk free ideology that will almost certainly drive public health policies post Covid, governments are very likely to embrace anything that reduces 'risk' to members of the public, regardless of how small and insignificant that risk is.

Some of us have been here before, of course, and it didn’t end well despite the lack of evidence that secondhand smoke was a significant risk to non-smokers.

Passive vaping may not yet be a thing, politically speaking, but you can see it coming. Don’t say we didn’t warn you.

Comments

[Pat Nurse]

We always said the puritans would first come for smokers and then line up vapers next to ensure the devil's smoke will never be seen coming from a health fearing human mouth.

Vapers should get wise, of course, fight as one for smoking and then vaping will be saved as a result.

All this crap about vaping is not smoking is not the issue. What is the issue is that vaping like smoking is not about health but the freedom to use a legitimate product in public without harassment, bullying, abuse or discrimination.

Vaping like smoking simply makes breath visible. Even Bauld is in danger of infecting others but sadly she is more dangerous because her breath is not visible, except on a cold day, so many more people could be infected by her and others like her because we can't avoid them and we don't see the virus coming from their mouths.

Neither smoke nor vape makes breath travel further and according to the junk scientists like Bauld, we smokers don't have enough lung capacity to breathe properly so why fear us anyway? Hate campaigning, fear incitement, nothing more.

Fight for smoking, fight for choice, but for God's sake, do stop the crap about ecigs saves lives. You will soon find St Linda et al attacking your battle cry and then you will have nothing - including the support of those people fighting the puritan bullies for decades before you.