Harvard Study Links Coronavirus Death Rate To Air Pollution

A Harvard University study at the T.H. Chan School of Public Health, which was updated on April 5, has confirmed that there is a direct correlation between long-term exposure to air pollution and a higher coronavirus death rate.

This Harvard study is the first to confirm a statistical link between coronavirus deaths and air pollution — something public health officials and environmentalists already surmised. It has been submitted to the New England Journal of Medicine for review.

Read Article

MDarringer - 4/9/2020 10:34:41 AM

+2 Boost

And studies will show anything they are paid to show.

xjug1987a - 4/9/2020 2:10:01 PM

-2 Boost

VERY predictable...

CANADIANCOMMENTS - 4/9/2020 4:08:41 PM

-1 Boost

It's always the tin hat wearing crowd that seems to be afraid of studies from respected institutions that point out the obvious. If your lungs are compromised by air pollution or smoking a pack a day, you are more likely to die from the COVID-19 virus.

MDarringer - 4/10/2020 11:10:45 AM

-1 Boost

Typical Alt-Left, don't-think, kneel-and-swallow response from Communistcomments.

qwertyfla1 - 4/9/2020 5:22:45 PM

+2 Boost

If this were indeed true then I would expect the death rate in China to be much higher than what is was then as the air there is horrible on a good day and smoking is still quite commonplace. We should fare much gooder in the north east seaboard and North America but we don't have the control or tracking capabilities of the Chinese as they tracked down everyone who was exposed and put them into forced isolation which curbed the numbers to a great degree.

PUGPROUD - 4/10/2020 7:01:00 AM

+3 Boost

Coffee is good for you until its not, then it is, then its not. Be open minded but also be leary.

SanJoseDriver - 4/11/2020 6:04:55 AM

+2 Boost

I don't think anyone on any political side would argue that breathing pollution is "good" or has any benefits whatsoever for you.

Tiberius1701A - 4/10/2020 7:51:10 AM

+1 Boost

Harvard..OK, whatever helps you sleep at night.

MDarringer - 4/10/2020 11:11:28 AM

0 Boost

Harvard is farther Alt-Left than the Alt-Left so their bias is EPIC.

Bach24 - 4/10/2020 8:24:34 AM

+2 Boost

More fake news!!! If this were true, California (L.A. and BA) would have the highest number of cases and deaths, but in fact per capita they have by-far the lowest number of both. Stupid is as Stupid does (or says).

garysandiego - 4/10/2020 6:47:51 PM

+2 Boost

Or maybe California adopted more effective and earlier social distancing initiatives than other states? Or maybe LA is less dense than NYC and thus fewer chances for person-to-person transmission? (SF and west bay counties haven't been on polluted city lists for a long time, but the less dense east bay counties are in some top ten lists.)

Naw...Can't be that. The study is fake.

Seriously, it is too early to report that study. It hasn't been peer reviewed yet. You pro-pollution folks have a reason to complain.

MDarringer - 4/10/2020 7:07:45 PM

0 Boost

Peer-review? The Alt-Left doesn't believe in that.

SanJoseDriver - 4/11/2020 6:09:53 AM

+2 Boost

San Francisco has shockingly clean air, primarily because of the windy peninsula location. San Jose/Silicon Valley has improved in past years. LA on the other hand... I think we have fewer coronavirus cases for a couple reasons:

1.) first state to implement aggressive social distancing measures
2.) we probably have had it for the past 80 days, many people here already developed immunity
3.) the state is more spread out than NY, NJ, and IL
4.) huge percentage of jobs can be done remotely and two weeks before social distancing was a thing, giant companies like Google, Facebook, and Salesforce started telling employees to work from home.