Smokers' hospitalisation rates were 1.32 times higher than never smokers and their use of hospital bed-days was 1.4 times higher.
Warri be kind to a numerical dyslexic and explain that '1.32 times higher' in terms of how many more out of 100 people are indicated here.
I keep getting confused by that 1. Does it mean point 32 time higher? Isn't 1 redundant? Isn't one smoker the same as 1 non smoker? Is it really 32% of 1% or how does that work? I can kind of get the 2.77 times as mean twice as many plus 77% of 1% but that doesn't seem right either. Just do one of those little cut out doll graphs they use to show .33 of a family etc as a set of legs and kid cutout or something.
... note I'm not kidding, I don't do numbers well at all, I was never wired for it. That's why I leave it to you ferret out the figures.
- Smoking increased hospital admissions and the duration of hospitalisations for all diseases, not just smoking-related illnesses. For example, for men who smoked more than 20 gm of tobacco per day in 1981–83, the risk of an admission to hospital over the next 20 years for a smoking-related condition was 2.77 times that of a non-smoker, and the risk of admission for other conditions was 1.32 times higher than for non-smokers.
There's that magic 1.32 times again. What's the risk rate for those fat and sugar tax evading diabetics being admitted "for other conditions," any figures on that?
Diwundrin wrote: Where do you draw the line at that attitude anyway? No treatment for AIDS sufferers, self inflicted? Or is that too unPC?
What about permanently disabled car drivers and bike riders that drain the health budget for near a lifetime? Only those not speeding or at fault entitled to live?
No treatment for diabetics because they didn't stick to the Nannies recommended nutrition regimen?? Hell, they don't even pay tax on sugar! How unfair to the taxpayer is that!??
btw, any word come in yet as to the stance to be taken and buzz phrases to be used to toe the Pollyanna Party line on that attitude line drawing thing?
Yeah, yeah, I'm stooping to sarcasm already, I'm tired. I'm not defending smoking per se, I'm under no illusions that it's beneficial except to keep some of us sane through stressful times and seemed the better option than heroin or Wild Turkey.
I'm simply defending the right to be allowed to go to Hell in the manner of my choice without interference from people whipped to a fervor by bodgied figures, twisted terminology, scare campaign furfys and illusions of gaining heavenly brownie points for harrassing the fad pariahs of the moment.
It's the same tactics we've fallen for since gods were invented, divide and conquer. Them and us. Goodies and baddies. Believers and skeptics, smokers and non smokers. Everyone wants to clamber onto the heaven bound train... hallelujah.
Lies and creative figures are produced by both sides of this crusade just as they are by others. There's bucks in it for both sides.
Somewhere down the middle is the closest to the truth.
Another point while I think of it. They implore everyone to give up. They say that each year after you quit your risk of lung cancer reduces. My uncle died of lung cancer 54 years after he gave up smoking and took up driving us nuts as an anti smoking campaigner. What's the point of giving up, particularly late in life, if you're gonna die of something else before the full quitting benefits kick in anyway? 54 years seem a bit of a wait. Wasn't he supposed to live forever as a non-smoker?
... sorry sarcy again.