Posted on 11/16/2011 12:39:21 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Does this mean that people who hire domestic workers won't be able to smoke in their own homes while the workers are on the premises?
A joint government-university study that shows good results from a government policy? I’m shocked!
(In all fairness, it is backed up by other studies.)
Nanny State PING!
That is because nobody is working and there is no stress setting at home collecting un-employment!
“Emergency room visits by North Carolinians experiencing heart attacks have declined by 21 percent since the January 2010 start of the state’s Smoke-Free Restaurants and Bars Law”
That means that smokers are staying home and eating better and drinking less.
Oh yea?
Have the researchers checked the traffic fatality or incident rate way up since they pass the law?
Speaking of ‘cause and effect’, completely non-related, of course.
Higher unemployment means fewer hours worked. Fewer hours means fewer heart attacks. Unemployment saves lives!
Very scientific “modeling”, LOL:
Supporting data.
We collected county-level gender- and age-specific stimates of population from North Carolina’s Office of State Budget and Management. We extracted county-specific weekly average temperature data from the Southeast Regional Climate Center (http://www.sercc.com). For counties without a weather tation, average temperature was based on average weekly temperatures recorded in all counties that are adjacent to the county with the missing data. Data on weekly rates of ED visits for influenza like illness (ILI) were accessed from the NC DETECT system and defined using NC DETECT’s syndrome based reporting definition.
Statistical Analysis
We used an interrupted time series design to evaluate whether the implementation of smoke-free legislation on Jan. 1, 2010, was associated with a change in the rate of ED visits for AMI. We calculated crude and adjusted rate ratios
by modeling the weekly number of ED visits for...
I smell BS. Somebody please let the herd out.
TC
The figures from the study actually suggest otherwise. The reduction from 2008 to 2009 was about 900 ER visits. In 2010 the reduction was around 500. It could be argued that the legislation slowed the reduction by about half.
People who eat out more often have higher cholesteral.
Thanks for the ping!
As good old Dad used to say: “Horse Puckey.”
/.02
Yeah its BS alright.. these govt funded “Studies” always manage to come out right after a ban is passed.. means nothing because the sole purpose of the “study” is to simply say “See we were right govt knows best”
Your best bet is to ignore these kind of silly fake studies.
I hate these so-called studies. The results presume that all of these people that had MI’s were regular bar patrons that went to places that allowed smoking. And now these barflys are not having as many heart attacks. That is simply not provable or even credible. How do prove a negative? You can’t demostrate that these people wouldn’t have had a heart attack anyway.
The correct question for the "reporter" to ask is how the incidence of heart attacks dropped in the previous 2 year period ('08-'10), and in the 2 year period prior to that.
I'd bet that it's not too different from the period measured (1/10 to current, I'm supposing, but the article conveniently left that out as well).
NO NO NO NO
This is all bogus BS. All “studies” in regard to this have been proven to be doctored in one way or another.
You were probably able to do that analysis in just a couple minutes. I wish there were someone in the media or the legislature capable of pointing out the same. Unfortunately, most people will believe this baloney and it only invites the nannies to up their game.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.