Hacker News Reader

Sanity check: This post attributes 19.1% of all deaths to smoking, but this is greater than the total number of smokers (18.1% according to http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/adult... which was the first search result I got). Since the author used that statistic and didn't immediately launch into a justification of how it's not completely crazy, I can't trust this article enough to read further.

View on HN

"Since the author used that statistic and didn't immediately launch into a justification of how it's not completely crazy, I can't trust this article enough to read further."

The methodology is in the footnote. But at least cancer deaths from smoking deaths lag by several decades, so I don't see why it would be at all unusual for there to be more smoking deaths than current smokers.

That is the expected result for a sub-population that has a shorter lifespan.

My sibling comment addresses deaths lagging over time. But even in the steady state of (say) 18% smokers, you expect more than 18% of deaths to be smokers because their life expectancy is shorter.

If every time a smoker dies you blame it on smoking, then sure. But while smoking is really terrible, it's not quite that terrible; smokers still manage to die of unrelated things sometimes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com