Comments
JKUAN108 t1_ixuba57 wrote
You are correct, as the authors acknowledge:
>Limitations
>Several limitations should be noted. First, it was impossible to assess cause and effect to the fan-attended games and the increase in cases or rates over the ensuing weeks. For example, it is possible that areas with less stringent COVID-19 restrictions, which research has linked to higher incidences of cases and deaths,20 were more encouraging of higher fan attendance. As such, these findings should be interpreted as associational and not causal.
HToTD t1_ixujuq4 wrote
You might be able to seperate the effects if you compared (days to spike) with (attendance as a percentage of capacity) and (attendance as a percentage of expected non-covid attendance)
You'd then have variables for both fan density at the game and relative fearlessness of the fanbase. With more data, maybe global data, and some transformations you could get better results.
JKUAN108 t1_ixul9jl wrote
They did compare attendance, with results differing with <5,000 fans and >20,000 fans.
elralpho t1_ixvh40n wrote
They were saying attendance should be presented as percentage of max capacity though, which could add some nuance to results. From a glance at wikipedia, theres about a 20k seat difference between the smallest and largest NFL stadiums
bkydx t1_ixv75c4 wrote
They could have also used all of the data instead of only 25% of it cherry picking games that occurred during the waves from the new covid strains and then attributing the new strains effect to the actions of 5000 people instead of the millions of students going to class and factory and office workers.
Tony_Sacrimoni t1_ixvhmzf wrote
The study and parent comment to the one you're responding to literally say that there is only an association and cause cannot be determined from the data.
bkydx t1_ixvi6of wrote
But even the fact they are inferring any relationship at all is misleading.
This study looked at 6 times the games with higher average attendance and showed no increase at all in covid by county because it wasn't conducted during the Beta variant outbreak.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2783110
JKUAN108 t1_ixvr5xe wrote
> https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2783110
I analyzed this article in this comment here, are you going to reply or concede my point?
bkydx t1_ixv7us4 wrote
The new covid mutations caused the waves and spikes and the NFL had nothing to do with it.
Cherry picking only 100 games out of 269 that occurred when the Beta mutation was causing massive spikes then associating it an outdoor NFL game with no cause or evidence is misleading.
JKUAN108 t1_ixvb69a wrote
Which mutation occurred during the 2020 NFL season?
In what way did they cherry pick those 270 games?
They never claimed the NFL caused anything. They explicitly say their results are not causal.
bkydx t1_ixvhiud wrote
The Beta Variant was during the 2020-2021 season.
They only used data from 100 of the 269 games.
Toumi et Al used the data from 600 games with an average of 10,000 people and showed no increase in covid in the county.
They clearly are not causal nor even related and the only reason it has any correlation is because the data is taken during the Beta variant outbreak.
JKUAN108 t1_ixvje3g wrote
> Toumi et Al used the data from 600 games with an average of 10,000 people and showed no increase in covid in the county.
I found the link:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8371570/
They considered limited attendance with a median of 9949 people (6000 to 13 797) and found no increase in COVID activity.
This paper that OP posted here did not consider specifically limited attendance, and allowed for attendance at 20,000 or higher (as mentioned in the title). They also found no increased covid activity at <5,000 people, consistent with the Toumi, et al. paper. So it appears that the paper you cited has results consistent with the paper that OP posted. So limited attendance (perhaps even up to 10,000-13,000) does not increase COVID, although attendance of 20,000 people does increase COVID.
[deleted] t1_ixvm6cx wrote
[removed]
JKUAN108 t1_ixvhux4 wrote
> the only reason
Do you have a source that it’s the only reason?
I will take a look at the other paper you mentioned
bkydx t1_ixv5fu1 wrote
A bigger and actually the biggest indicator is covid mutations.
Even the strictest and most vaccinated and mask wearing populations still had covid outbreaks during the new mutations.
​
I can't believe a paper is trying to attribute the virus mutations that caused world wide spikes and waves of cases to a 5000 people safely sitting outdoors.
You know 50,000,000 students and millions of office workers makes any NFL game statistically insignificant.
vashoom t1_ixvm7k1 wrote
>I can't believe a paper is trying to attribute the virus mutations that caused world wide spikes and waves of cases to a 5000 people safely sitting outdoors.
Well, good news, it's not.
e-chem-nerd t1_ixwqgjm wrote
If you read the paper, you didn’t understand it.
[deleted] t1_ixuim24 wrote
[removed]
cyberentomology t1_ixv1386 wrote
This should surprise absolutely nobody who was paying attention and doesn’t have their judgment clouded by conspiracy theories, but glad someone put in the work to show the data.
bkydx t1_ixvkgjm wrote
Previous research that looked at 6 times amount of data showed no increase in covid due to NFL and NCAA games with ~10,000 people.
You are the one with clouded judgment.
The cause of the increase in cases was the Beta Variant and nothing else.
​
It is statically impossible for 0.001% of the population that went to a sporting event to cause a 200% increase in the entire population.
[deleted] t1_ixvp8ip wrote
Please tell me where there’s a population of 100m and only one 10k person stadium.
bkydx t1_ixvupl1 wrote
Sorry one too many 0's but it still doesn't change the equation.
.001% of a problem is not the cause of the problem.
There are way more people watching sports at bars and having people over in their house then watching in the stadium.
There are more people on public transit.
There are more kids in school.
There are more workers in the office.
They have no explanation as to how or why and no mechanism and the magical inferred connection they found completely disappears with no explanation at 10k people or less.
They collected data during the peak climb of the Beta outbreak and didn't mention it or acknowledge it.
The same data was collected outside of the Beta outbreak in another paper and all of the correlation and inferred connections disappeared.
So maybe the cause of the beta outbreak is the Beta Variant and not the NFL or NCAA just maybe.
JKUAN108 t1_ixvvar4 wrote
I just want everyone to know that I have asked u/bkydx on three separate occasions for a source on his claim that the cause of the post-NFL spike was the Beta variant, as it relates to the current paper in discussion, and so far they have provided nothing.
They have now also backpedaled from "BECAUSE THEY [the authors] ALREADY KNOW THE CAUSE WAS THE BETA VARIANT" and "The cause of the increase in cases was the Beta Variant and nothing else" to "just maybe" the spike was caused by the beta variant.
Korwinga t1_ixvz4pg wrote
They also were initially making the assertion that the NFL played 1000 games in 2020, so using 269 games was "cherry picking". In reality, there were 269 NFL games played in 2020, and this paper used all of them.
bkydx t1_ixvzcxa wrote
You do not understand sarcasm.
There is no back-peddling and my argument stands.
NFL/ncaa attendance Data collected pre Beta variant shows no increase.
NFL attendance Data Collected during Beta variant, inconsistent, sometimes no effect with no explanation as to why.
The Strong relationship when over 20,000 fans is explained by population density being higher in the larger cities and outbreaks effecting higher populated areas significantly harder.
I provided Mechanisms, Reasoning, Comparing papers and variables.
​
You provided "both papers show no covid problems with less then 10,000 people" which agreeing with me and contradicts yourself.
Conclusion
NO COVID PROBLEMS FROM NFL GAMES.
JKUAN108 t1_ixvzud1 wrote
> I provided Mechanisms, Reasoning, Comparing papers and variables.
Ok, so for the fifth time, please provide a PAPER backing up your claim about the Beta variant ("BECAUSE THEY [the authors] ALREADY KNOW THE CAUSE WAS THE BETA VARIANT" and "The cause of the increase in cases was the Beta Variant and nothing else")
> contradicts yourself
No, what I said was that there were no COVID problems with less than 10,000 people (or maybe 5000 people) and there were COVID problems with more than 20,000 people. Show me where I contradicted myself.
> NO COVID PROBLEMS FROM NFL GAMES.
Do you work for the NFL or something? The conclusion is "no covid problems with less then 10,000 people" not "NO COVID PROBLEMS FROM NFL GAMES"
JKUAN108 t1_ixw1nn5 wrote
> The Strong relationship when over 20,000 fans is explained by population density being higher in the larger cities and outbreaks effecting higher populated areas significantly harder.
Should I even bother asking you if you have a source on this one?
cyberentomology t1_ixvwxqr wrote
It boggles the mind how your preconceived biases are preventing you from connecting the dots here.
Korwinga t1_ixvz3pd wrote
> The same data was collected outside of the Beta outbreak in another paper and all of the correlation and inferred connections disappeared.
I'm real curious how 2 papers can collect data from the same set of NFL games (2020 season), but only one of those sets of games occurred during the Beta outbreak. Care to explain it?
bkydx t1_ixw1821 wrote
One set occurred Aug-Dec 2020 and they also looked at NCAA games.
This paper looked Sept -February 2020-2021
Beta Variant October-Feb 2020-2021.
​
Many of the NFL games were in both studies but one is 95% Beta variant and the other is balanced 50% before and 50% during beta which cancels out.
51 NBA games happened this week with close to 20,000.
Where are all the outbreaks? It's indoors and should be worse then NFL games and yet nothing.
Korwinga t1_ixw4908 wrote
Do you know how long the NFL season is? It lasts from September until January, with all but one set of games being complete by the end of December. Your paper that looked from Aug-Dec includes all of the normal season games from the NFL, minus 16, but none of the post season games (13 games). Out of the total NFL games (269), your paper should include 240. 89% of the data set for the NFL is in fact the exact same games (aside from the potential cherry picking of data in your study, but we don't need to get into that).
Here's the real difference. Your paper is 20% NFL games, and 80% NCAA games. They lump all of the games with in person attendance together and judge that entire batch as a group. Now, from this more recent study, we know that games with <5000 people didn't show any trend towards increased Covid spikes. We don't have the attendance numbers for the NCAA games (a serious limitation of that study, but that's okay), but I really struggle to imagine that it was higher than the NFL games during that same period. If your data set is dominated by data that doesn't match the rest of the data, that can easily skew results.
Now, I can't prove that without doing a study of my own, but it's a perfectly reasonable explaination for why these studies got different results. If you read the conclusions of BOTH of these studies, they talk about limitations. One of the limitations of your study is exactly what has been stated here:
>First, owing to data limitations, we considered in-person attendance as a 0 or 1 binary variable. Specifically, while in-person attendance numbers were available for NFL games, they were not available for NCAA games. Explicit consideration of attendance numbers may change the estimation.
There are also additional limitations on this study that they specifically said should be followed up on:
>Third, we also did not account for the spillover effects to the counties adjacent to the ones hosting NFL or NCAA games.
This is one of the limitations that OP's study specifically was looking at. They also discuss your study and why they think they got different results:
>It is important to note that our study was distinct from and comes to different conclusions than a 2021 study that examined in-person attendance in NFL and NCAA games and detected no increase in COVID-19 cases in 3 ways. First, Toumi et al only included 19.1% of NFL games, whereas our study included every game. Second, our study examined both in-county and contiguous county COVID-19 cases whereas Tuomi et al only considered in-county spread. Third, our study examined the number of fans in attendance whereas Toumi et al6 only included a dichotomous measure indicating fan or non–fan attended games. Consideration of these factors may explain the differing results.
You're trying to spin this as bad science, and I guarantee you that the authors of your study would disagree. This is important expansion of previous work. There is no single source of truth in science, and you can have different results among similar studies; Often deeper dives will tell you why this occurs and gives a more complete answer. That's what OP's study is doing.
>51 NBA games happened this week with close to 20,000.
>Where are all the outbreaks? It's indoors and should be worse then NFL games and yet nothing.
Maybe because a lot of people have been vaccinated now? Weird, it's almost like vaccination works to help us get back to a normal life. How strange.
EDIT: I had a math error. Fixed it.
JKUAN108 t1_ixw21og wrote
Ok, for the SIXTH time, what is your source on your claim on these claims of yours:
> BECAUSE THEY [the authors] ALREADY KNOW THE CAUSE WAS THE BETA VARIANT
>The cause of the increase in cases was the Beta Variant and nothing else
Also:
>The same data was collected outside of the Beta outbreak in another paper and all of the correlation and inferred connections disappeared.
> One set occurred Aug-Dec 2020 and they also looked at NCAA games.
Ok, so it's not the same data and you admit your first statement was incorrect?
[deleted] t1_ixw6lde wrote
[removed]
cyberentomology t1_ixvwtc1 wrote
Airborne virus + tens of thousands of people packed in close proximity is going to result in spread of said airborne virus. Fewer people packed into less close proximity won’t.
They didn’t just pull that “social distancing” thing out of their asses.
2weirdy t1_ixvndvq wrote
>cause a 200% increase in the entire population.
Did they say that? Read mostly the abstract and only skimmed the paper, but the closest I got was a ~2 times incidence of spikes. IE it is 2x as likely for a spike to occur, which doesn't really have to have that much of an impact on the total coubt.
vashoom t1_ixvmw57 wrote
This paper also says no real increase for those games though. It's "cherry picking" data because it's looking at the effect of larger audiences.
Like...what is your problem? Do you deny all science or only the science that hurts your fee fees?
pinniped1 t1_ixuefdi wrote
Did they baseline against transmission of communicable diseases after games when the stadium was full? (Perhaps using flu for 2019 or covid from 2021.)
I'm still convinced I got flu from the 2019 AFC Championship game. Although the seating bowl was outdoors, getting a beer before the game was like a half hour in a very packed indoor space.
JKUAN108 t1_ixufi6a wrote
They did not
cyberentomology t1_ixv26hl wrote
However, this result may (and should) prompt further research to confirm or refute that. This is exactly the sort of thing public health officials and medical professionals need to be looking at, to inform health protocols for large gatherings and analyze the cost/benefit of not only health protocols at the event (what works, what doesn’t) but also whether an event should be held at all.
It would also be very interesting to see how the numbers differ for disease with airborne spread vs contact spread, as having some baseline data could provide valuable early input into determining how the next novel pathogen is spread.
We also need a really robust, anonymous, and automatic contact tracing system. The one Apple and others have implemented is pretty solid, but that whole process is currently infected with politics.
bkydx t1_ixvjot3 wrote
Previous research that looked at 6 times amount of data showed no increase in covid due to NFL and NCAA games with ~10,000 people.
This data was taking during the worst of the Beta variant and is associating the spike caused by the SARS2 mutation to NFL stadiums which is beyond dumb.
Does anyone with a brain think that .0001% of the population is having a 200% effect on the spread of covid?
No the average NFL fan did not contribute to 2,000,000% more covid because they sat in an outdoor stadium one time.
the_varky t1_ixvo7a8 wrote
This study is looking at the county level (as well as surrounding area). Are you implying there are 20 billion (20,000 / 0.0001%) people in the county(ies) surrounding an NFL stadium?
cyberentomology t1_ixvx5kn wrote
Gosh, it’s almost like different variants had different thresholds for contagion or something.
CrudelyAnimated t1_ixvtxkt wrote
We knew this in autumn of 2020. I mean, I'm glad the study was formally conducted and analyzed, but this study merely refined the data from nationwide spikes to county-specific spikes in the neighborhoods of games. It also doesn't account for the college football season spreads of 2020 and 2021. Again, I'm glad to see it formalized and connected explicitly to these cities and counties on these dates. That will be more convincing to people who are predisposed to believing evidence and science.
JKUAN108 t1_ixuau0j wrote
The authors analyzed 7-day, 14-day and 21-day windows following the game. They found increased COVID spikes in 14-day and 21-day windows (although not 7-day windows). So I would guess one possible policy in the future would be to test for windows at varying intervals after the first game, and see if there is a spike before deciding on the second game. Since NFL games are weekly (for the most part), not having back-to-back home games seems like a good idea. A Thursday home game right after a Sunday home game seems like a very poor idea as well.
> Overall, 269 total NFL games (117 with fans and 152 without fans) were included; a total of XX individuals attended.
Is "XX" supposed be a number here?
> When the National Football League (NFL) announced its intentions to play a full season of football in 2020, some thought the decision was devoid of consideration of the health and well-being of the players, coaches, staff members, and even the fans who would attend. However, others wanted live football back as the games would offer a respite from the stress and anxiety that the COVID-19 pandemic had brought to their lives. The NFL, like other professional sport leagues, was dealing with large revenue-based financial losses and a desire to resume play.
Off-topic, but I appreciate how we're not even pretending that the NFL was motivated by anything other than money.
Professional_Emu3041 t1_ixw4ws3 wrote
It really doesn’t surprise me. Not only is it a massive gathering, but football skews conservative, so you’ve likely got a larger portion of unvaccinated people in the mix as well. And of course, anyone willing to go to a stadium game is more likely to go out in general, increasing their probability of infection and transmission overall.
Professional_Memist t1_ixzxpzi wrote
From one professional to another, you should know vaccines weren't widely available during this study.
Professional_Emu3041 t1_iy0amnk wrote
Wow, yeah, it literally says 2020 season. That was silly on my part
Professional_Memist t1_iy0azt8 wrote
All good, was just pointing that out. Would have been interesting to have that data though.
Wagamaga OP t1_ixu9ipo wrote
Key Points
Question Was fan attendance at National Football League (NFL) games during the 2020-2021 season associated with subsequent spikes in COVID-19 cases in-county and in contiguous counties?
Findings In this cross-sectional study of NFL games attended by a total 1.3 million fans, the presence of large numbers of fans at NFL games was associated with increases in the incidence of COVID-19 cases both in the counties in which these venues were located and contiguous counties. Specifically, NFL games that had 20 000 fans in attendance had 2.23 times the rate of spikes in COVID-19, but NFL games with fewer than 5000 fans in attendance did not generate any spikes.
Meaning This analysis suggests that in-person attended games during the NFL’s 2020 season were associated with subsequent spikes in COVID-19 cases, and that the spikes were most prominent when attendance was over 20 000 persons.
[deleted] t1_ixv0ha0 wrote
[removed]
sophandros t1_ixuag3f wrote
This makes sense because these were large events before the vaccine was widely available.
[deleted] t1_ixwkrjb wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_ixwl4t3 wrote
[deleted]
whetherwhether t1_ixwok56 wrote
Not as much though. The vaccine isn't incredibly effective against spread but it does help.
Petal_Chatoyance t1_ixx6wen wrote
So, Covid spreads like a disease?
Who could ever have known that.
Diamond4Hands4Ever t1_ixx2fie wrote
Did they separate this analysis between outdoor games and games in domes? Just curious to know if there are any differences.
TheHomieData t1_ixx9g0e wrote
You mean to tell me that there’s a link between attending a sporting event in an enclosed stadium where people are too drunk to notice they’re spitting while they talk - and a significant rise in cases of a contagious virus that thrives in population-dense environments?
I’m shocked; shocked i tells ya.
AutoModerator t1_ixu9gv8 wrote
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[deleted] t1_ixueskq wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixuh6i5 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixunndn wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixurt87 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixv4t2u wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixv86gm wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixv89do wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixvcks0 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixvhaue wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixvkkrr wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixvsagg wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixvtxgx wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixvvenl wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixvzgy0 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixwcn3c wrote
[removed]
PooFlingerMonkey t1_ixwgxvp wrote
Marked safe from crowded stands at Lions games.
[deleted] t1_ixwqavx wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixx3wuk wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixxctgd wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_ixyasdo wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixyhlib wrote
[deleted]
Sensitive_King8739 t1_ixxu4g5 wrote
sacrifices must be made for football
[deleted] t1_ixutrng wrote
[deleted]
hbk2369 t1_ixv6xy1 wrote
In 2020 there were capacity restrictions in many states
[deleted] t1_ixv8zu9 wrote
[deleted]
pn1159 t1_ixvyzv6 wrote
Can we say that the two are correlated and determine the amount.
CathodeRayNoob t1_ixxq7cv wrote
Sane people have taken the vaccine, gotten covid, and understand it’s essentially a new common cold.
Sucks to suck if you are an antivaxxer but covid isn’t a problem for the rest of us now. RSV and immune system “atrophy” are the problems now.
[deleted] t1_ixy43iy wrote
[removed]
cummins87 t1_ixwkd89 wrote
Who cares? Clearly “science” and “covid” don’t mean anything. Let people live their lives.
kilranian t1_ixx9sda wrote
"Let me selfishly kill people without being reminded of it. It hurts my fee fees."
mat_cauthon2021 t1_ixvyeet wrote
Considering ALL the other variables that can't be accounted for in the community, the cause/relation is very weak
kingp43x t1_ixvtj44 wrote
go wagamaga go! You can reach 11 million karma, super bot!
[deleted] t1_ixwkf5q wrote
[removed]
BuyNo4013 t1_ixvb929 wrote
Unexplainable, unexpected… Wth, there were plenty of studies during COVID already linking school openings to increase in contagion. WHICH DOES NOT MEAN that I am pro-lockdown or pro-online school. Imho one really does not need to have physical attendance of sports et al., but work and school must go on during a pandemic dangerous “only” to the old and sick.
Thenickiceman t1_ixwbg61 wrote
Do the BLM riots next
SashiGarami t1_ixvqogb wrote
Now do mostly peaceful protests
kilranian t1_ixx9w7o wrote
Why are racists so obvious while thinking themselves cleverly hidden?
[deleted] t1_ixuc6wj wrote
[deleted]
brian_sahn t1_ixue2a0 wrote
Do you have anything to say about this study or are you just here to be an ignorant clown? (”they” did)
JackMitcham t1_ixuhwgo wrote
They literally did.
No-Explanation-9234 t1_ixuh8ro wrote
TL;DR, if you got to an NFL, expect to get Covid
ValyrianJedi t1_ixvzz80 wrote
That isn't remotely an accurate description of what it says.
bkydx t1_ixv9vhk wrote
There is no evidence that backs up your statement. Outdoors is safe.
It is impossible for a NFL game to have the effect the paper is stating.
If actions of 20,000 people had the effect this paper stated on populations of 20,000,000+.
Then each individual that went to a NFL game contributed 200,000% to the Covid outbreak.(Impossible in case you can't understand data)
​
Or maybe there were new Covid strains and 30,000,000 students and millions of office works and essential workers that had to continue their lives.
No-Explanation-9234 t1_ixvahwo wrote
You are absolutely right man. Outdoors totally safe, those deer and other wildlife that caught Covid obviously must have gone to Ye Olde Deer Tavern at night, in tight quarters with no mask. It's just impossible otherwise. Totally.
bkydx t1_ixvb4f4 wrote
The Deer shouldn't have went to the NFL games then.
No-Explanation-9234 t1_ixwvy05 wrote
That's the irony. They didn't, and caught Covid from being out in the woods.
bkydx t1_ixv4juu wrote
Covid Science. Cherry pick a small time window at the beginning or an end of a covid wave.
Non-causally attribute new covid mutations to things that bother you like sports or music.
Non-causally attribute Natural immunity ending the wave to politics, masks and vaccines.
JKUAN108 t1_ixvjkbx wrote
> non-causally attribute
The authors explicitly state that their results are non-causal.
bkydx t1_ixvl6le wrote
BECAUSE THEY ALREADY KNOW THE CAUSE WAS THE BETA VARIANT.
Even non-causually attributing a known cause incorrectly is just plain lying and misleading.
Look https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2783110
Zero increase in covid from 600 sporting events with 10,000 people.
JKUAN108 t1_ixvlse3 wrote
> BECAUSE THEY ALREADY KNOW THE CAUSE WAS THE BETA VARIANT.
Right, this goes back to my question about a source for this.
> Look https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2783110
> Zero increase in covid from 600 sporting events with 10,000 people.
I already glanced at that article and responded in another comment. That article doesn’t mention the beta variant.
bkydx t1_ixvr6za wrote
Because Most scientist do not include the information that contradicts their entire paper and proves they are lying and incorrect.
Of course the article I linked doesn't mention the beta variant because it wasn't prevalent yet.
So you have 2 papers with different results looking at the same thing.
One shows 200% increase and one shows no increase.
From Aug-Dec they found no increase due to sporting events
From Sep 12th to February 7th shows a 200% increase during the Beta Outbreak.
Assuming both papers are truthful by looking and comparing their results and data you can reasonably assume outdoor stadiums are not a significant concern to the general population.
The amount of people Hosting football games at home with guests and watching at bars is significantly higher then fans that attend in person and I would argue indoor get-togethers are higher risk then outdoor stadiums.
JKUAN108 t1_ixvrqm6 wrote
> BECAUSE THEY ALREADY KNOW THE CAUSE WAS THE BETA VARIANT.
> Of course the article I linked doesn't mention the beta variant because it wasn't prevalent yet.
Ok, so for the third time, what is your source on "the cause was the beta variant"? If your next reply doesn't have a source I am assuming that you just made this up.
> So you have 2 papers with different results looking at the same thing. One shows 200% increase and one shows no increase
No, the papers are actually consistent. One paper allowed for attendance up to 20,000 or more and found an increase in COVID. Another paper only considered limited attendance (up to 13,000) and found no increase. They do not "look at the same thing."
Also, you say that both papers look at the "same thing" and you say beta variant was prevalent in one paper but not the other? You are contradicting yourself.
> Assuming both papers are truthful by looking and comparing their results and data you can reasonably assume outdoor stadiums are not a significant concern to the general population.
They found this for outdoor stadiums with limited attendance, sure.
>I would argue indoor get-togethers are higher risk then outdoor stadiums.
I agree, but this doesn't contradict the paper that OP posted.
bkydx t1_ixw1x36 wrote
51 NBA games happened this week with close to 20,000 fans in attendance indoors and there were are no 200% covid increase outbreaks happening.
Thanks for your input but there is far too much evidence proving you wrong.
One single snap shot during the 95% of the worst of the Beta variant is just showing the effects of the beta outbreak. All of the data agrees.
JKUAN108 t1_ixw2go6 wrote
> One single snap shot during the 95% of the worst of the Beta variant is just showing the effects of the beta outbreak.
Ok, for the SEVENTH time: do you have any source at all about your claims on the Beta variant or not?
> 51 NBA games happened this week with close to 20,000 fans in attendance indoors and there were are no 200% covid increase outbreaks happening.
Did you account for increased vaccination and natural immunity rates?
vtman7 t1_ixugu2s wrote
Interesting, because most of these games were held outside with social distancing. I thought it had become accepted that covid doesn’t spread as easily in outdoor settings
SpecificFail t1_ixukaip wrote
Less easily doesn't mean that it can't, just that it is harder to spread through one avenue of infection. You still have large numbers of people congregating and existing in a common space. Railings, bathroom facilities, eating, packing themselves into corridors getting in and out of the stadium. This is ignoring the fact that most did not practice social distancing or wearing masks. If you think social distancing was being actively followed, you were kidding yourself.
The point that jumps out in my head was watching a college championship game, people in stands without a mask to be seen, standing shoulder to shoulder, game is over, and they all crowd the field hugging, kissing, partying.
There were no guidelines actually being followed at these events, not even remotely. In some states, it was even encouraged to not follow guidelines just to thumb their nose at liberals.
Odd-Independent6177 t1_ixv0kcc wrote
Also, travel to and from the game would be a factor. People from multiple households probably spending an hour plus in a car together, unmasked, talking boisterously about the game, assuming / implying they are hoarse from cheering.
And because these connections weren’t being made in real time and communicated in plain language by local news, each game was incorrectly interpreted as evidence that it was just fine. Even my own husband was like “people are going to all these sporting events and it seems fine.” Shoulda made the NFL fund some test and trace.
prof_hobart t1_ixumjdz wrote
Even if the game is outside, the concourses to get to and from your seats usually aren't.
bkydx t1_ixv3xjl wrote
But you can wear a mask and the area's are somewhat ventilated and not very high risk.
Millions of people are going in to the office and classrooms with significantly worse ventilation daily and anyone who has a clue about statistics knows the 20,000 compared to 50,000,000 had zero effect.
They cherry picked 270 games during that happened during the New covid mutations that caused huge waves and spikes.
prof_hobart t1_ixvp647 wrote
You can, but it only takes one infected person to not be wearing one to make it a covid hotspot. And every new person who does the same increases the risk.
And yes millions of people go to work, but not all in the same building.
>anyone who has a clue about statistics knows the 20,000 compared to 50,000,000 had zero effect.
Yet it seems that it did have an effect
>They cherry picked 270 games
How many games of similar capacity did they not look at over that time?
JKUAN108 t1_ixuj8i9 wrote
>outside with social distancing
From the article:
> Games with fewer than 5000 fans were not associated with any spikes, but in counties where teams had 20 000 fans in attendance, there were 2.23 times the rate of spikes in COVID-19 (95% CI, 1.53 to ∞).
bkydx t1_ixv0nbt wrote
Because it didn't spread outdoors.
Key Points.
Data is very cherry picked and anything that didn't fit their agenda was left out.
Sometimes there were no spikes from huge attendances.
5000 or less attendance had no spikes.
All Spikes and data collected was at the start of the current wave where cases were increasing drastically before the NFL games took place.
20000 people at an outdoor football game is a drop in the bucket compared to 50,000,000 students being crammed poorly ventilated classrooms daily.
Over 1000 NFL games but lets only pick the 270 that occurred at the beginning of a Covid mutation that was going to have a huge Wave regardless and attribute 100% of it to the NFL.
cyberentomology t1_ixv2ns1 wrote
It would also be interesting to compare enclosed stadiums vs outdoor, but there may not be enough data here.
bkydx t1_ixv6jmo wrote
Enclosed stadiums still have sufficient fresh air and with decent masking in indoor areas they should be very low risk but higher then outdoors which is almost a zero.
cyberentomology t1_ixv6sem wrote
Show your work.
[deleted] t1_ixv5ylx wrote
[removed]
IT_GUY_23 t1_ixui89k wrote
I've seen a lot more evidence supporting this than anything the author's are claiming...is this actually a scientific article or just anecdotal?
JKUAN108 t1_ixuj99u wrote
> Games with fewer than 5000 fans were not associated with any spikes, but in counties where teams had 20 000 fans in attendance, there were 2.23 times the rate of spikes in COVID-19 (95% CI, 1.53 to ∞).
bkydx t1_ixv2tdj wrote
They are taking data from the new covid strains spikes and attributing it to football.
Definitely a few people would catch covid waiting 30 minutes in line for a beer while not masking but very unlikely to be spreading viciously through the stands.
20,000 people at a stadium doesn't compare to 50,000,000 million students in classrooms daily or millions in offices.
Korwinga t1_ixv82le wrote
Where are you getting 1000 games from? They were only looking at the 2020 season, which only had the 256 games plus playoffs which is 13 games. Am I missing something?
[deleted] t1_ixvamee wrote
[deleted]
Korwinga t1_ixvb7t8 wrote
Do teams play solo in your version of the NFL? Each game should have 2 teams, unless I'm seriously misunderstanding football.
Also, here's the Wikipedia article for the 2020 season. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_NFL_season
bkydx t1_ixvg7a0 wrote
I Updated the number of games and looked closer at the data.
They did have 269 games but the data used is only from 100 games.
Toumi et al looked at 600 games and an average attendance of 10,000 and found no increase in covid cases by county because it wasn't cherry picked during the worst part of the beta variant.
Korwinga t1_ixvv46b wrote
>They did have 269 games but the data used is only from 100 games.
Where do you get this idea from? Here's what the paper says:
>This included a total of 269 NFL game dates. Of these games, 117 were assigned to an exposed group (fans attended), and the remaining 152 games comprised the unexposed group (unattended). Fan attendance ranged from 748 to 31 700 persons. Fan attendance was associated with episodic spikes in COVID-19 cases and rates in the 14-day window for the in-county (cases: rate ratio [RR], 1.36; 95% CI, 1.00-1.87), contiguous counties (cases: RR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.00-1.72; rates: RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.13-1.76), and pooled counties groups (cases: RR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.01-1.79; rates: RR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.29-2.28) as well as for the 21-day window in-county (cases: RR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.21-1.83; rates: RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.26-1.78), in contiguous counties(cases: RR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.14-1.65; rates: RR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.24-1.71), and pooled counties groups (cases: RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.11-1.79; rates: RR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.35-2.15). Games with fewer than 5000 fans were not associated with any spikes, but in counties where teams had 20 000 fans in attendance, there were 2.23 times the rate of spikes in COVID-19 (95% CI, 1.53 to ∞).
They looked at all of the 269 games. 117 were part of the exposed group and 152 was the unexposed group.
bkydx t1_ixvvdz0 wrote
I got the idea from the source sited in the paper where they took all of their data from.
Should I get the data the paper analyzed from the paper from some else?
Korwinga t1_ixvwz7h wrote
What are you talking about? Are you looking at a different article than the rest of us? They talked through the methods that they used to pull the data. It's all from public sources, not from another paper.
First off, your link is broken, but I think I was able to navigate to what you're trying to point at. I'm still not seeing where they used the data for only 100 games though. Can you quote something specific?
Korwinga t1_ixvd43q wrote
Way to just edit out all of your mistakes. Do you agree that they aren't cherry picking data now? Why even leave this comment up if the main pillar of your criticism is gone?
bkydx t1_ixvglzi wrote
They cherry picked 100 of the 269 games and are only looking at the worst part of the Beta variant.
Similar better conducted studies show there was no increase in covid due to NFL and NCAA games.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2783110
Korwinga t1_ixvxmib wrote
Wait, is this what happened? You got confused. Your "better study" is actually the one that is using (potentially) cherry picked data. They are only analyzing 101 of the NFL games over their time period. Is this where you got the idea that the OP study was only analyzing 100 games?
Ironically enough, OP's study actually discusses this study and why it got different results. It might help if you actually read the study before criticizing it.
vtman7 t1_ixuimqh wrote
When I see articles like this, it seems like the authors are trying to come to the conclusion they want. Anything is possible if you cherry pick and manipulate data points
Korwinga t1_ixvbej2 wrote
There's no cherry picking here. They used the data from all the games in the 2020 season.
JKUAN108 t1_ixuja23 wrote
> Games with fewer than 5000 fans were not associated with any spikes, but in counties where teams had 20 000 fans in attendance, there were 2.23 times the rate of spikes in COVID-19 (95% CI, 1.53 to ∞).
dmk120281 t1_ixuq7rl wrote
Didn’t you get the memo? We’ve moved on from the COVID thing. We’re doing the Ukraine and Twitter things now.
cyberentomology t1_ixv2ebk wrote
Science is going to keep studying the mountains of data that arose from the pandemic, probably for decades to come.
dmk120281 t1_ixv89eq wrote
Of course homie. It was a joke.
[deleted] t1_ixuq8ub wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixutf2w wrote
[removed]
MasterPayne611 t1_ixuegf6 wrote
So. .... how about also studying spread rates from protests and riots held during the height of the pandemic when the lockdiwns were in place. But I guess that doesn't further the agenda
brian_sahn t1_ixufyl7 wrote
This sub is about science, not politics. That said, here’s your study. It took me all of 3 seconds to find that using google. If you want people to listen to you and take you seriously, it helps to actually know what you’re talking about.
[deleted] t1_ixwlx2m wrote
[deleted]
brian_sahn t1_ixwpt0h wrote
You’re making it political by assuming it is biased because the article is hosted on a website that ends in .gov. Let me know if you have any comments on the substance of the research, not what website it is hosted on.
And here, is this better?
[deleted] t1_ixwtnj0 wrote
[deleted]
brian_sahn t1_ixwukkc wrote
It’s pretty clear you didn’t read mine or OPs study.
[deleted] t1_ixxp201 wrote
[deleted]
brian_sahn t1_ixy74u9 wrote
So your opinion on the matter isn’t confirmed by these studies so it must be the studies that are wrong, not your opinion? Is that what you’re saying? Can you specifically identify any part of the methodology that is flawed?
[deleted] t1_ixwpi9s wrote
[deleted]
JackMitcham t1_ixuhvrk wrote
It has been studied. Incredulity is not an argument.
[deleted] t1_ixufkcw wrote
[removed]
HToTD t1_ixua4hq wrote
Not only would the game itself be a mode of spread, but attendance would serve as an indicator of a population's willingness to gather in other circumstances as well.