Drop in child asthma. Vindication for smoking ban?

[tinfoilhat]

Absolute vindication. There is no excuse for smoking in the same space as children.

 

I've no idea why people thought otherwise prior to the ban to be honest - asthma or not.

[Olive]

so, we were right to question the news report but the conclusion is valid, thanks for taking time out to explain it so simply, appreciated.

 

No, it was a silly news report. Thanks to Biotecpete, we have a better picture. The article essentially said:

 

“Incidents of serious asthma attacks in children have decreased significantly since the ban on smoking in public buildings came into force in 2007. It is thought that this is down to reduced rates of smoking in the home.”

 

This makes no sense at all as a narrative, one part of the story does not seem to be linked to the other, and discredits the overall message.

 

What they could have said was:

 

“Incidents of serious asthma attacks in children have decreased significantly since the ban on smoking in public buildings came into force in 2007. Although the ban only applied to public workspaces, it seems that the knock-on effect has been to change people’s attitudes towards smoking at home, thereby reducing children’s exposure to cigarette smoke, which is thought to be one of the contributing factors to asthma attacks.”

 

….or something along those lines (with better grammar!)

[Uptowngirl]

No, it was a silly news report. Thanks to Biotecpete, we have a better picture. The article essentially said:

 

“Incidents of serious asthma attacks in children have decreased significantly since the ban on smoking in public buildings came into force in 2007. It is thought that this is down to reduced rates of smoking in the home.”

 

This makes no sense at all as a narrative, one part of the story does not seem to be linked to the other, and discredits the overall message.

 

What they could have said was:

 

“Incidents of serious asthma attacks in children have decreased significantly since the ban on smoking in public buildings came into force in 2007. Although the ban only applied to public workspaces, it seems that the knock-on effect has been to change people’s attitudes towards smoking at home, thereby reducing children’s exposure to cigarette smoke, which is thought to be one of the contributing factors to asthma attacks.”

 

….or something along those lines (with better grammar!)

 

That seems about right. The ban on smoking in public places has certainly changed peoples perception of smoking from one of being socially acceptable to one of toleration in its place. Many parents now do not smoke in the car or at home if they have young children. This is because everyone is now aware of the dangers of passive smoking although a few diehards might still try to deny it.

[francypants]

No, it was a silly news report. Thanks to Biotecpete, we have a better picture. The article essentially said:

 

“Incidents of serious asthma attacks in children have decreased significantly since the ban on smoking in public buildings came into force in 2007. It is thought that this is down to reduced rates of smoking in the home.”

 

This makes no sense at all as a narrative, one part of the story does not seem to be linked to the other, and discredits the overall message.

 

What they could have said was:

 

“Incidents of serious asthma attacks in children have decreased significantly since the ban on smoking in public buildings came into force in 2007. Although the ban only applied to public workspaces, it seems that the knock-on effect has been to change people’s attitudes towards smoking at home, thereby reducing children’s exposure to cigarette smoke, which is thought to be one of the contributing factors to asthma attacks.”

 

….or something along those lines (with better grammar!)

 

I agree, yours makes much more sense. I hate it when people play with words to suit their opinions. The same applies with statistics, you can make them say anything if you juggle them.