Does smoking protect against Covid-19?

1. Where does the science now stand?

A study conducted in England a few months ago and with larger samples than the studies conducted previously links the results obtained in the studies at the beginning of the Pandemic (China, Italy and France). This latest study shows that smokers, despite what was initially believed, are not only not protected against Covid, but are also more likely to be hospitalised in the event of contracting the disease

2. Why were the initial studies flawed? Were things done wrong?

  • There is a famous saying that "extraordinary things require extraordinary evidence", and to think that smokers, just because they are smokers, would have special protection against a respiratory virus sounded like science fiction from the start.
  • Finding extraordinary evidence is something that takes a lot of work and requires time, so you have to be patient from the moment a theory is put forward, as in this case "smokers are better protected against covid-19" and the moment this theory is backed up by sufficient scientific data to consider it proven (or disproven, as the case may be).
  • Now, the general public is very attracted to these extraordinary theories and human beings have a propensity to believe in these kinds of wonderful facts, even if they are still in the process of being proven.

3. Can we make an analysis of how these conclusions were initially reached?

  • We must begin by bearing in mind that science is the purpose of clarifying things we do not know. This uncertainty, in a civilisation that always pretends to have everything under control, is a very uncomfortable feeling that makes us nervous.
  • It is the same as if there is a 10% rainfall forecast. In this case you probably won't take your umbrella with you when you leave the house, and in 9 out of 10 cases you will have made the right decision... but what about that one time when you get wet? Well, you'll complain about how wrong the weather forecasters are and you'll regret having taken their advice after getting wet.
  • The problem here, to return to the subject at hand, is not the probability study carried out by professional meteorologists, but our need for certainty. Our unconscious needs an interpretation of probability in an absolute reality.
  • This need for certainty is found in virtually every corner of our lives, surveys, business plans, economic and political predictions... even at the doctor's visit we expect a conclusive answer as to what is wrong with us and not "what could be wrong with us".

4. So if everything is based on probability, was the evidence from the early studies valid at all?

  • Science works on probabilities and as we gather new data we have to recalibrate the probabilities and percentages.
  • If we have two hands and in one of them there is a coin. Before checking what is in the first hand, the probability that there is a coin in the first hand is 50%. After checking the first hand, the probability that there is a coin in the second hand will vary depending on whether the coin was in the first hand or not. In other words, if it was in the first hand, the probability will now be 0%, and if it was not in the first hand, the probability will be 100%.
  • And this same example can be used in the Covid-19 study. At the beginning of 2020, with little evidence about how this virus works, we had to gradually recalculate our probabilities as more and more valid evidence appeared. So by the end of 2021, mail is no longer disinfected, but we continue to use face masks.
  • We cannot claim that the recommendations obtained at one point in time are 100% correct, as new evidence may appear at any time. What we can say is that the recommendations given are the best based on the information gathered so far. 

5. How does this apply to the "Smoking Paradox"?

  • Before the pandemic the evidence pointed to smoking being unhealthy. But with new information gathered in the early stages of the pandemic, the odds might have changed, showing a scenario in which smoking had a positive health effect, if it protected against Covid-19.
  • But this evidence was not valid. At the time of publication, most of these articles had not yet been reviewed by other scientists. A number of them were withdrawn when it was discovered that they had been funded by tobacco multinationals.
  • Care must be taken with "pre-publications" as these articles are often used to disseminate information, without guaranteeing that the information is correct, as it has not yet been sufficiently verified.
  • In addition to this untested proto-publication status, most of these studies were based on small sample sizes, which makes one doubly cautious when considering evidence from these studies.
  • The studies in China, Italy and France had been carried out on a few hundred subjects. The later study in England that unseated them was carried out on more than 400,000 people.
  • Moreover, the proposition of the early studies was "Of the people who are currently hospitalised, how many smoke... this is not the same as asking, "Compared to non-smokers, how likely are smokers to be hospitalised?
  • In the first case, we study the surviving hospitalised, i.e. we have already opened a hand without a coin (to use the analogy of the previous explanation) and therefore we do not take into account a very important variable that definitely influences the results of our probability. In the British study, the entire population was studied, without applying any filters before starting to evaluate the data, so the results are more reliable.

6. Was science wrong to propose the "smoker's paradox"?

  • Science was not wrong. It is an interesting finding that, thanks to an extraordinary conclusion, was widely reported in the media and spread like wildfire. If we have learned (or are learning) anything from Covid, it is that extraordinary findings (inhaling hydrogen peroxide, using bleach, the effects of tobacco, zinc or vitamin D, gargling with iodine...) must be contrasted with the highest standards of evidence to be taken into account in the scientific study of these findings.
  • These extraordinary and sometimes sensationalist news stories fly, while the scientific evidence can only just limp along behind them.

7. What is the best option for smoking during the pandemic, and is it worth investing in an electric cigarette injector now?

  • Without a doubt (especially now with our restricted mobility), there is no better way to enjoy the hobby of smoking than by producing your own cigarettes. Become independent of the continuous price hikes and be the only one who determines what does and does not go into your cigarettes.
  • By using an electric injection machine to produce your cigarettes, those will be indistinguishable from industrial cigarettes, either in terms of appearance, taste and/or burning characteristics.
  • Powerfiller offers you a wide range of electric cigarette injectors. Take a look at our collection and you are sure to find the perfect machine for your needs.
  • At Powerfiller Smoking, our aim is to provide you with the best automatic cigarette injection machines, with the best quality and at a great price, so you can enjoy yourself and save money at the same time.
  • Try to produce your own made-to-measure cigarettes and convince yourself! You'll be delighted... and if not, at Powerfiller Smoking you can return your machine for 2 weeks with a money-back guarantee.


Do you have any questions or comments, how is the pandemic developing where you live, thank you in advance for a brief comment! We'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.

See you next week!
Your Powerfiller-Smoking-Team

The fields marked with * are required.

I have read the data protection information.