Can you see how this might be confusing to some?
-
-
Yeah- I mean I don't know if we are talking past each other or if I am too focused on something that wasn't the whole of your argument (I hear a lot of BS about vaping & that paper is used as an excuse to throw a lot of babies out with bathwater by opponents to the technologies)
-
It seemed that you were not making a general argument about how fraught quantification is in ANY policy context - but reducing the use of that figure dismiss an institutional endorsement of vaping in the UK - which came about through robust science work. If I misread, apologies
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
As just a vaper, I pose this question. Is it the number (be it 95, or 60, or even 5) that is the issue, or the fact of less harm caused? Is there a magic number that differentiates levels of harm reduction? Does something 5-95% less harmful make it the deciding factor in this?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.