I want to delve below the simple statement that smoking increases infection risk — the apparent grounds on which the sale of cigarettes is banned during lockdown.
It is common knowledge that smoking does harm the lungs, and maybe other components involved in breathing. I assume it is this damage that renders smokers more susceptible to infection. However, banning the sale of cigarettes for a few weeks can only deprive smokers of the act of smoking, it does not repair long-term damage to the respiratory system, so presumably will not change smokers’ susceptibility to infection.
There are also indications that the act of smoking may actually reduce the risk of infection. I have not seen any evidence that of itself the act increases the infection risk. If the speculated danger is that people share cigarettes, surely when cigarettes are made harder to come by and are excessively priced on the black market smokers are more, not less, likely to share?
To my mind, this calls into question the rationality of the cigarette ban and either the level of thought process or the motivation behind it.
Roger Briggs
Edenvale
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.