>>"The study is clear that what you are getting is a reduction in life duration. By their own numbers the reduction in life expectancy is about 18 months. So people are already in the last parts of their lives."
Sorry Bob, but if a major aspect of the study depends on a *cumulative* effect of NO2 aspiration as opposed to acute, and your s…
>>"The study is clear that what you are getting is a reduction in life duration. By their own numbers the reduction in life expectancy is about 18 months. So people are already in the last parts of their lives."
Sorry Bob, but if a major aspect of the study depends on a *cumulative* effect of NO2 aspiration as opposed to acute, and your study population has been using gas hobs for more or less their *ENTIRE* lifetime, how can you say that the reduction in life expectancy is ONLY at the end of their lifespan? Italian life expectancy has stagnated since 2012, around 82.5 years—this is not due to NO2 or gas hobs or even Covid-19 but some other factor(s). It's like saying we can cut U.S. healthcare costs by 3/4ths if we stopped providing care to the terminally ill, since 80% of all healthcare expenses are incurred during the last 6 months of life—or like saying that we can *presume* any mortality occurring within 6 months of a positive Covid-19 test is the result of the virus and not something else (which we saw people who died in car accidents being labeled as having died from Covid.)
Paediatric asthma is no different than the adult form except for (a) it sometimes resolves itself spontaneously as a child ages and (b) adult onset has a worse prognosis.
Don’t confuse diagnosis with mortality risk. You also haven’t addressed explaining why Sweden has such a high asthma rate in BOTH paediatric *and* adult populations as both are very similar to each other but yet has one of the lowest gas hob utilization rates in the EU.
Weasel words. You attempted to compare two data points that appear to be the same but are actually quite different. You are now attempting to cover up your mistake.
"You also haven’t addressed .. the EU."
Distraction. Irrelevant to the subject under discussion. Any report covering this sort of subject area and scope will inevitably have individual data errors/anomalys in it. It does not mean the report is faulty - it simply shows the real life is both complex and messy.
You have failed to provide anything that suggest that there are fundamental problems with the report. One is left to assume that you are unable to come up with anything.
Your frequent approach of "this does not say what I want so it must be wrong" does you no credit.
I am not prepared to waste more O2 on this, this thread is now closed.
>>"The study is clear that what you are getting is a reduction in life duration. By their own numbers the reduction in life expectancy is about 18 months. So people are already in the last parts of their lives."
Sorry Bob, but if a major aspect of the study depends on a *cumulative* effect of NO2 aspiration as opposed to acute, and your study population has been using gas hobs for more or less their *ENTIRE* lifetime, how can you say that the reduction in life expectancy is ONLY at the end of their lifespan? Italian life expectancy has stagnated since 2012, around 82.5 years—this is not due to NO2 or gas hobs or even Covid-19 but some other factor(s). It's like saying we can cut U.S. healthcare costs by 3/4ths if we stopped providing care to the terminally ill, since 80% of all healthcare expenses are incurred during the last 6 months of life—or like saying that we can *presume* any mortality occurring within 6 months of a positive Covid-19 test is the result of the virus and not something else (which we saw people who died in car accidents being labeled as having died from Covid.)
There are studies out there that show Nordic countries have the highest rates of asthma (https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/edn-20210924-1) while others show Italy actually has a **lower** asthma incidence rate than the EU average and less than half that of Sweden's, despite just 1,5% of their hobs running on gas (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1296610/asthma-prevalence-in-the-eu/ and https://i.ytimg.com/vi/LYQNMlgzqNg/maxresdefault.jpg). How are we to square various datasets that show diametrically opposing results without questioning the veracity of the NEW study that purports gas hobs are evil?
It's why I continually am disappointed in modern "science" and will stand by my original claim: this study is nothing but bullshit.
“how can you say that the reduction in life expectancy is ONLY at the end of their lifespan? I”
Because that’s what the data says.
You are also confusing paediatric asthma with the total population asthma rate.
Paediatric asthma is no different than the adult form except for (a) it sometimes resolves itself spontaneously as a child ages and (b) adult onset has a worse prognosis.
Don’t confuse diagnosis with mortality risk. You also haven’t addressed explaining why Sweden has such a high asthma rate in BOTH paediatric *and* adult populations as both are very similar to each other but yet has one of the lowest gas hob utilization rates in the EU.
"Paediatric asthma i...prognosis."
Weasel words. You attempted to compare two data points that appear to be the same but are actually quite different. You are now attempting to cover up your mistake.
"You also haven’t addressed .. the EU."
Distraction. Irrelevant to the subject under discussion. Any report covering this sort of subject area and scope will inevitably have individual data errors/anomalys in it. It does not mean the report is faulty - it simply shows the real life is both complex and messy.
You have failed to provide anything that suggest that there are fundamental problems with the report. One is left to assume that you are unable to come up with anything.
Your frequent approach of "this does not say what I want so it must be wrong" does you no credit.
I am not prepared to waste more O2 on this, this thread is now closed.