Disc Golf Course Review

Disc Golf Course Review (https://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Disc Golf Chat (https://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Are we not taking Covid-19 seriously (https://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136199)

Dcinmd 09-09-2020 09:36 AM

Quote:

College football player Jamain Stephens dies at age 20 of COVID-19 complications
Posted by Michael David Smith on September 9, 2020, 5:15 AM EDT

California University of Pennsylvania
Jamain Stephens, a football player at California University of Pennsylvania and the son of a former Steelers first round-draft pick, has died at the age of 20 of COVID-19 complications.
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...complications/

DG_player 09-09-2020 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monocacy (Post 3629555)
But riots and protests have not done the same thing. The article I linked addressed the somewhat surprising lack of disease spread from riots and protests (including several graphs), and also linked the original working paper from June 2020, revised August 2020. I have quoted from the abstract, and linked the working paper below if you care to read it.

However, many public health officials have warned that mass protests could lead to a reduction in social distancing behavior, spurring a resurgence of COVID-19. This study uses newly collected data on protests in 315 of the largest U.S. cities to estimate the impacts of mass protests on social distancing, COVID-19 case growth, and COVID-19-related deaths. Event-study analyses provide strong evidence that net stay-at-home behavior increased following protest onset, consistent with the hypothesis that non-protestersí behavior was substantially affected by urban protests. This effect was not fully explained by the imposition of city curfews. Estimated effects were generally larger for persistent protests and those accompanied by media reports of violence. Furthermore, we find no evidence that urban protests reignited COVID-19 case or death growth after more than five weeks following the onset of protests. We conclude that predictions of population-level spikes in COVID-19 cases from Black Lives Matter protests were too narrowly conceived because of failure to account for non-participantsí behavioral responses to large gatherings.

Black Lives Matter Protests, Social Distancing, and COVID-19

I've seen this paper quoted a number of times, usually supporting the notion that protesters aren't spreading the virus and putting people at risk with their activities, and that it's somehow less dangerous than other activities involving large groups.

That's not what is says at all, they even specifically state that they don't have the data they need to make a determination of what the actual spreading caused by protesters is. All that it says is that protests, especially the large scale more violent ones, cause people to stay at home more than they would have otherwise because they are afraid or their lives have been disrupted. The net effect is that there has been no increase in cases.

I'm not going to dispute the notion that the value of protesting out weighs the increased covid transmission risk. However it's extremely disingenuous how it has been generally reported, which is that protesting is not an increased transmission risk. It's hypocritical to tell people many of the activities important to them (school, going to church, taking the kids to the beach) are dangerous and should be the subject of a risk/benefit analysis, and then completely ignore the risks when it comes to protests.

I'm not sure there is a whole lot you can conclude from this study in relation to sturgis, other than maybe the bikers should have looted and pillaged when they returned home to offset whatever increased spread they caused in their communities.

ru4por 09-09-2020 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smigles (Post 3629540)
People protesting against violations of their rights might be a little more important than bikers gathering for a party.


But noooo, it's all propaganda and we are being controlled by "the agenda" boo hoo whoo hoo :wall:

The vast majority of people protesting have little, to no idea, what "rights", "liberty" or "freedom" even mean.

Monocacy 09-09-2020 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DG_player (Post 3629582)
I've seen this paper quoted a number of times, usually supporting the notion that protesters aren't spreading the virus and putting people at risk with their activities, and that it's somehow less dangerous than other activities involving large groups.

That's not what is says at all, they even specifically state that they don't have the data they need to make a determination of what the actual spreading caused by protesters is. All that it says is that protests, especially the large scale more violent ones, cause people to stay at home more than they would have otherwise because they are afraid or their lives have been disrupted. The net effect is that there has been no increase in cases.

I don't disagree with your interpretation. Clearly, any large gathering increases the possibility of transmission. Anecdotally though, it certainly seems that protesters are far more likely to be wearing masks than the folks at Sturgis, and far less likely to be in close proximity indoors without masks.

Wearing masks, distancing, and avoiding indoor gatherings have been repeatedly demonstrated to be remarkably protective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DG_player (Post 3629582)
I'm not going to dispute the notion that the value of protesting out weighs the increased covid transmission risk. However it's extremely disingenuous how it has been generally reported, which is that protesting is not an increased transmission risk.

I was responding to the statement that "riots and protests have done the exact same thing." Clearly, as the studies show, there have been significant differences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DG_player (Post 3629582)
It's hypocritical to tell people many of the activities important to them (school, going to church, taking the kids to the beach) are dangerous and should be the subject of a risk/benefit analysis, and then completely ignore the risks when it comes to protests.

Under current circumstances risk-benefit calculations should strongly influence our actions as individuals and as a society. When the protests were beginning, I recall reading quite a few articles expressing concern about the potential for disease transmission.

Whether we can safely return to schools, churches, and beaches depends greatly upon whether we can reduce the number of people who are infected, and reduce the chances of asymptomatic transmission. Events like Sturgis, college parties, indoor gatherings without masks, and to a smaller extent protests, all work against resuming something resembling normalcy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DG_player (Post 3629582)
. . . maybe the bikers should have looted and pillaged when they returned home to offset whatever increased spread they caused in their communities.

I will leave it to you to set up that research experiment. ;)

McCready 09-09-2020 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick Pacific (Post 3629533)
The media is pumping this motorcycle rally as a superspreading event study for a reason.

Yeah, because very few people were wearing masks, and it was indeed a superspreading event.

VictorB 09-09-2020 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick Pacific (Post 3629533)
The media is pumping this motorcycle rally as a superspreading event study for a reason. But very little mention of how the riots and protests have done the exact same thing. The reason for this is that the motorcycle rally, and their bias against the race and political affiliation of people who attend them, fits the agenda they are pumping out.

uh yeah it's pretty simple - people out protesting are overwhelmingly wearing masks, people who went to Sturgis didn't.

There's not even anything political about that statement (unless you look at personal politics of each individual, where I can infer there would be a correlation)

uncle pennybags 09-09-2020 11:57 AM

The people of Sturgis actually voted against having the rally, but the local government overruled them. People were coming regardless due to the 80th anniversary, so lets roll with it.

ru4por 09-09-2020 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uncle pennybags (Post 3629632)
The people of Sturgis actually voted against having the rally, but the local government overruled them. People were coming regardless due to the 80th anniversary, so lets roll with it.

Economy over lives. Actually what many are calling for. I think we all understand the need to balance both, but I think we will not like the ultimate results from Sturgis.

roggenb3 09-09-2020 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uncle pennybags (Post 3629632)
The people of Sturgis actually voted against having the rally, but the local government overruled them. People were coming regardless due to the 80th anniversary, so lets roll with it.

Sturgis residents: We should cancel, this is going to be unsafe.
Politicians: But money.
Sturgis residents: Touche.

jakebake91 09-09-2020 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roggenb3 (Post 3629656)
Sturgis residents: We should cancel, this is going to be unsafe.
Politicians: But money.
Sturgis residents: Touche.

Sums it up about perfect!


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:32 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.