To verify it, we have the finished text of the study, which gentilmente the SEE provides on his web page. Look, look in the text for an incisive affirmation as that of the avoidance of 1.500 deaths. They will not find it. More that they will find in the conclusions of the chapter on the effects of the law for the health it is:
The coming into effect of the Law looks like 28/2005 that it has had effects benefciosos for the health of the general population, in terms of a reduction of the hospitable income for sharp infarction of myocardium and of the respiratory morbidity of not smoking workpeople of the sector of the hotel trade.
And in the conclusions of the study:
5. The law has had a positive impact in the health, específcamente in the reduction of the respiratory symptoms in the workpeople of the hotel trade. Also, there is preliminary information that suggest a reduction of the cases of infarction of myocardium in the general population.
It "seems", "he suggests that". And no number in the conclusions. And in the text? What is the substance on which there are based these conclusions and, in particular, the affirmation of 1.500 avoided deaths? The following one, a substance more ethereal than the smoke of the tobacco (my bold faces):
To complement this information about morbidity there appears an estimation of the mortality attributable to the consumption of tobacco, for general population> = 35 years, assuming a hypothetical stage with a reduction of the predominance due to the law. This way, if the current decreasing tendency was hastening thanks to the Law 28/2005, and if the predominance in the year 2010 would lower approximately 20 % in relative terms, the mortality attributable to the nicotinism would be provided with 1070 deaths less in men and 289 in women (Table 5.1). In a similar way, if the exhibition predominance in the men between 35 and 64 years was supported HAT hypothetically in the hearths and was diminishing 80 % in relative terms in the labor ambience, the mortality attributable to HAT would descend in 121 annual deaths, while in the women of the same stripe of age, assuming a relative descent of 25 % (since they depart from a predominance of minor exhibition), the attributable mortality would descend to 51 deaths (Table 5.1). In a joint way, the reduction in the consumption of tobacco and in the exhibition would have to HAT an impact of 1482 deaths less a year.
Know that HAT is not a hat, but Environmental Smoke of the Tobacco.
How they see for the bold faces, it is a question of a hypothetical stage, foreseen for 2010, in case certain assumptions were fulfilled. Or, nothing referred to what has happened, but to what might happen. And, in any case, the information would mix two effects: that of the fall previous to the law and that of the hypothetical extra fall.
The best thing is that the fundamental assumption (the one that implies the fall of a major number of deaths), of extra reduction of the predominance of the consumption of tobacco, is not supported not with the information of the proper study. In the chapter dedicated to the effects of the law in the predominance of the consumption of tobacco it ends (my bold faces):
With the available information at present, the results do not suggest any impact of the Law 28/2005 on the indicators of consumption of tobacco. In general, the descent in the smokers' predominance and in the number of emaciated cigarets, as well as the increase of the abandonment of the tobacco, they reflect a continuation of the temporary evolution in short and half term observed before the coming into effect of the law.
Repeat with me: "no impact of the Law 28/2005 on the indicators of consumption of tobacco". The tendency to the fall is before to the law and it has been supported later without detectable changes.
Then: on what are they based to depart from the hypothesis of which the law will accelerate the fall in the predominance? In nothing. They suppose it and it is already.
Then they want that we trust in the scientists...
No comments:
Post a Comment