Off message smoking and Covid review snubbed by PHE and ASH
Saturday, March 6, 2021 at 14:00 Researchers at University College London (UCL) this week updated their painstaking living review on the association between smoking and Covid.
Version 11 was published on March 2 and the conclusions were pretty much the same as every previous version (which I posted here):
Compared with never smokers, current smokers appear to be at reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection while former smokers appear to be at increased risk of hospitalisation, greater disease severity and mortality from Covid-19. However, it is uncertain whether these associations are causal.
As I noted in January however anti-smoking campaigners and public health professionals seem very reluctant to publicise, let alone endorse, the conclusions of the review.
Shamefully, despite being acknowledged in every version of the living review as the man who specifically requested an extended review, Martin Dockrell, Public Health England’s tobacco control lead (and formerly of ASH), has not acknowledged it (on Twitter at least) since September when version 7 was published.
Visitors to the PHE website can still find a discredited report suggesting that 'smokers with Covid-19 are 14 times more likely to develop severe respiratory disease', but you'll find no mention of the living review that was effectively commissioned by their own head of tobacco control!
Far be it for me to suggest that the review is being ignored because the results don’t fit the tobacco control narrative that smokers should ‘quit for Covid’, but draw your own conclusions.
Likewise if any anti-smoking group or activist has tweeted, retweeted or 'liked' a link to recent versions of the review I haven’t seen it.
ASH's daily news briefing includes links to all sorts of public heath stories, not all of them directly related to smoking or nicotine. Since Tuesday, when version 11 of the living review was published, reports have included:
Scotland: A call for action on lung health; Levelling up? Most of the UK is still in the grip of austerity; China: WeChat removes smoking emojis; NHS budget to fall by £9 billion next year as COVID-19 funding is scaled back; Study: Cigarette-style warnings on alcohol could increase awareness of danger; Starmer calls for NHS 'heroes' to get bigger pay rise after unions attack 'pitiful' 1%; and New Zealand: Tobacco tax revenue plunges as Kiwis kick the habit
However, a study that concluded – for the umpteenth time – that current smokers appear to be at reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to ex-smokers and never smokers failed to get a mention.
In fact, to the best of my knowledge only one tobacco control 'name' has retweeted or liked a link to the latest version and that was Robert West, emeritus professor of health psychology at ... UCL.
Reacting perhaps to these snubs from the tobacco control industry, the UCL researchers have become noticeably more defensive about some of their findings, citing "many caveats".
What can't be denied – although it is being ignored, wilfully it seems, by the likes of ASH and Public Health England – is this:
An increased risk of Covid-19 mortality was observed among former smokers. For current smokers results were inconclusive and favoured there being no important association.
Like Chris Snowdon, who has analysed the latest version of the living review on his blog here, I applaud the four UCL researchers for diligently continuing their work despite mounting indifference from members of the tobacco control community who would undoubtedly be screaming from the rooftops if there was any evidence – significant or otherwise – associating current smoking with a greater risk of infection from Covid.
Instead the opposite appears to be true and whatever the caveats nothing alters the fact that:
Across 405 studies, recorded current but not past smoking prevalence was generally lower than national prevalence estimates. Current smokers were at reduced risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and former smokers were at increased risk of hospitalisation, disease severity and mortality compared with never smokers.
Reader Comments (1)
Simon
But think of the compensation that would be due to all the ex smokers and their families, if they did admit it.
I think they forget that the tobacco plant is first and foremost an ancient herbal medicine on which the American First Nations relied.
They seem to have no concept of the not so new medical gases either.