OT: The Sturgis Rally and COVID
TL;DR - Sturgis is estimated to be responsible for over 25%(!!) of cases in the month of August.
Should we bill the governor?
New @SDSUCHEPS paper by Dhaval Dave @FriedsonAndrew @Drew_McNichols & Joe Sabia ("Contagion Externality of Super-spreader") finds Sturgis Motorcycle Rally was a local & nationwide spreader of COVID-19. Estimated public health cost: ~$12B
— CHEPS (@SDSUCHEPS) September 6, 2020
See: https://t.co/uByz9ja6hL pic.twitter.com/jdLlLkwRek
September 8th, 2020 at 1:26 PM ^
The only place that I have seen this 20% number thrown around is here on MGoBlog. To the best of my knowledge, the currently accepted estimate is that you need between 60-80% to achieve herd immunity.
September 8th, 2020 at 1:32 PM ^
Is the New York times an acceptable source on this blog?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/17/health/coronavirus-herd-immunity.html
September 8th, 2020 at 1:59 PM ^
From the article you linked:
Now some researchers are wrestling with a hopeful possibility. In interviews with The New York Times, more than a dozen scientists said that the threshold is likely to be much lower: just 50 percent, perhaps even less. If that’s true, then it may be possible to turn back the coronavirus more quickly than once thought.
I haven't had time to read the whole thing yet, but that jumped out on a quick skim. Also, my comment above was clearly qualified by saying "to my knowledge". I'll finish reading it later today, but a very quick glimpse seems to imply that my number was closer than yours.
September 8th, 2020 at 3:28 PM ^
The IFR is not anywhere close to 1 to 3 percent. CDC and many other sources have good data on this.
September 8th, 2020 at 11:42 AM ^
I love the people who constantly believe in American exceptionalism, but bad. America is not unique in opposing COVID measures. There was a huge rally in Germany a week or so ago.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/world/europe/berlin-germany-protest-…
There was an anti-mask rally in Madrid:
https://www.france24.com/en/20200816-spaniards-hold-anti-mask-protest-i…
There was one in France, as well. This isn't an American thing, it's a people thing.
September 8th, 2020 at 10:39 AM ^
I'm sorry, but give me a break. While it was incredibly stupid to have the Sturgis rally, you're telling me that none of these cases have anything to do with the countless protests going on around the country? Any gathering of a large group of people is going to contribute to additional cases.
September 8th, 2020 at 10:42 AM ^
You should read an article or two about how they arrived at 250k infections, traced to this (rather long) event, before you say things. Or not, I guess it doesn't really matter nowadays. Just say whatever, someone will believe you.
September 8th, 2020 at 10:45 AM ^
Sorry bro, I don't even believe half of what i read anymore. It doesn't matter what side of the fence we're on. We're constantly lied to and misinformed.
September 8th, 2020 at 10:48 AM ^
username: confirmed.
September 8th, 2020 at 10:51 AM ^
I love how your response to information you don't agree with being "fake news" is to just stay completely uneducated and make baseless claims
September 8th, 2020 at 10:55 AM ^
Man, you can glean all that from one comment on a Sports blog message board. I wish I had your gift of insight.
September 8th, 2020 at 11:04 AM ^
You made an uneducated claim about covid cases being caused by protests (which you could've easily done research on to learn that your claim was false) then proceeded to defend that claim saying that there's too much misinformation out there. The only logical conclusion there is that you are choosing to stay uneducated about the topic because you think everything is fake news
September 8th, 2020 at 11:18 AM ^
September 8th, 2020 at 6:34 PM ^
So you just believe what you want to.
Great plan.
September 8th, 2020 at 2:20 PM ^
They made huge leaps to get to those numbers. Here's NPRs version - 260 cases out of 500,000 visitors.
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/09/02/908874…
If you can get to 12B in losses from 260 cases, imagine what the protests wreaked?
September 8th, 2020 at 10:46 AM ^
Protests might have resulted in local outbreaks (none as severe as this, that I am aware of), but somewhat counterintuitively, the NBER found that protests increased net stay-at-home behavior overall (though this is from June so we're a little past then of course). As others have stated, protestors were also more likely to be wearing masks.
Event-study analyses [on protests in 315 of the largest U.S. cities] provide strong evidence that net stay-at-home behavior increased following protest onset, consistent with the hypothesis that non-protesters’ 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
September 8th, 2020 at 10:49 AM ^
There is also the fact that the protestors were outside and in the wind, and largely masked, and not generally sharing facilities like bars.
September 8th, 2020 at 10:50 AM ^
It's called contact tracing. As of now, there has been few cases linked the protests across the country, likely because the vast majority of protesters are wearing masks, compared to Sturgis where the target demographic was blatantly anti mask
September 8th, 2020 at 10:55 AM ^
This is likely a huge factor differing protests to this event. A large population of the people joining protests are responsible with their mask wearing. Clearly not the case here.
But I guess masks don't work...
September 8th, 2020 at 12:13 PM ^
there's not much that i enjoy more than stereotyping large groups of people to fit my preconceptions and reinforce my world view
September 8th, 2020 at 4:48 PM ^
I don't think it was solely the mask wearing. It's responsible behaviors in general (of which mask wearing is the easiest proxy). Those willing to wear masks are also going to be more mindful of keeping distancing, not touching one another etc. If you think it's all a hoax and refuse to wear a mask, you're likely engaging in a lot of other risky behaviors as well.
But the protests being outside and not stationary is a big reason they weren't responsible for significant spreading. The mask wearing was probably largely offset but the yelling but still didn't really matter. Because, outside while mostly distancing and moving.
September 8th, 2020 at 11:12 AM ^
Watch the rallies; most people are wearing masks. Watch footage of Sturgis.
September 8th, 2020 at 10:40 AM ^
But hey, the city probably made a few million in tourism money so worth it right?
September 8th, 2020 at 12:04 PM ^
I believe the city residents voted not to hold it but a combination of inertia and the governor telling them to pound sand led to it happening.
September 8th, 2020 at 10:42 AM ^
Without getting into the politics of it I’m curious to see how nationwide protests impacted cases.
note: I am not equivocating bikers wanting to party with people protesting police brutality. i am just curious about applying the same methodology to other mass gathering events where people travel from surrounding regions to attend.
September 8th, 2020 at 10:51 AM ^
This has already been quantified, several times. If you really want to get informed on the topic, get off this site and get thee to the Google machine.
September 8th, 2020 at 10:51 AM ^
A simple google search will return you quite a few articles showing that social justice protests and marches had little to no correlation to spreading the virus.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/black-lives-matter-protests-haven-t-led-covid-19-spikes-n1232045
https://time.com/5861633/protests-coronavirus/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/recent-protests-may-not-be-covid-19-transmission-hotspots-11592498020
September 8th, 2020 at 11:05 AM ^
It's not insignificant that you two of your sources are typically on opposite sides of the political spectrum (NBC News and WSJ). When you get left-leaning and right-leaning publications reporting the same thing, it should help to mute some of the conspiracy theories.
September 8th, 2020 at 11:16 AM ^
I appreciate the point you're making, but the idea that NBC is left-leaning is pretty funny.
September 8th, 2020 at 11:40 AM ^
C'mon. MSNBC is known as MSPMS for a reason. Next, you're going to tell me that Fox News is really fair and balanced.
September 8th, 2020 at 1:26 PM ^
It's just dishonest reporting and research! There is no two ways about it. if you look through images from the end of May to present you see 1000's of images where so many protesters are packed close to one another about 1/3 are not wearing masks. Then read the research about the different types of masks and face coverings and how effective they are at preventing the spread of Covid and that social distancing is still required. You can't in anyway reasonably think those are anything other than OPED articles with a narrative to support protests.
It's also narrative to target the Sturgis Biker Rally as the reason Covid spread to what ever number of people. But then in turn be lockstep to say Protests are okay and didn't spread the virus at all because masks. Then be on this site saying we should have football or fans in the stands when we could just have everyone wear masks. As it's being stated, it's safe with masks.
So it's safe for athletes who all have been ridiculously tested and are negative to play, the fans have to wear masks and lets pack the big house because 100,000 protesting in LA, DC, Chicago, NY or anywhere in this country is safe then put the players on the field and fans in the stands.
September 8th, 2020 at 10:51 AM ^
FWIW, statistically, DC and surrounding areas had a negligible increase in cases after ~150,000 showed up to march.
September 8th, 2020 at 2:34 PM ^
So wait a second, for Sturgis they data tracked everyone who tested positive to ask them if they went or someone who they were in contact went to the rally and it spread from there.
DC had negligible effect? So protests began the end of may with cases in DC area clearly on the decline and the protests started along with states opening up and within six weeks the cases were peaked and protests had nothing to do with it? You can clearly see 1000's of images of protests with 1/3 or more not wearing masks. To say they were negligible in impact is just intellectually dishonest.
1/3 or more not wearing masks. Another 1/3 wearing face coverings that are completely ineffective at slowing down any spread of covid. And that doesn't count all the people not properly wearing their masks or people taking them off for period of time. Or the public travel/transit. Or the time to stop and use the restrooms or get the mcfoodfix. The amount of time to wordsmith these results must be exhausting...................
September 8th, 2020 at 10:59 AM ^
The reason you haven't heard much about it is that the protests don't appear to have driven infections much at all (or we'd have seen noticeable increases in June in places like the Twin Cities, NYC, Chicago, Portland, etc, that simply did not materialize). Preponderance of the evidence is that if people are outdoors and masked, there simply isn't much transmission.
Sturgis on the other hand was a bunch of people not wearing masks and plenty of them were crowding into bars. We know indoor transmission is FAR more likely than outdoor, and crowded spaces where people are yelling over the music and other people is gonna be the worse, since yelling or singing spreads the virus more efficiently (projects the droplets farther) than merely talking at a normal volume. Same reason why numerous outbreaks have been tied to churches holding indoor services - unmasked people singing indoors.
I'll be curious to see what kind of data we eventually get on masked people distancing in an arena and in the outdoor stadiums (i.e. limited capacity crowds, masking requirements to attend). If people are masked and distancing I think it's possible that there won't be much spread especially in the outdoor stadiums, but I understand cities and states that aren't willing to even take the chance, policing masking in a sizeable crowd can't be easy and some assholes will flip out about the rules.
September 8th, 2020 at 11:16 AM ^
Confirmed: singing .38 Special's "Hold on Loosely" at a Sturgis karaoke bar was not a wise decision.
September 8th, 2020 at 11:48 AM ^
True. Nobody could sing harmony worth a shit.
September 8th, 2020 at 11:06 AM ^
As others have said, there is actually a lot of info on this. Just one example:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/minnesota-sees-rise-covid-19-cases-tied-protests/story?id=71393938
Infectious disease experts have warned that mass protests over the death of George Floyd could lead to another wave of COVID-19 infections. So far, Minneapolis, where the protest activity originated, has not seen a dramatic uptick in cases related to the demonstrations, the state's Department of Health told ABC News Monday.
As of late last week, 4,487 tests conducted across four testing sites specifically for protesters resulted in 62 positive cases of COVID-19, for a positivity rate of 1.4%, the department said.
And look at where cases and case positivity has been dropping: New York, DC, Portland, etc. Has there been any lack of protests in those areas? New York just reached its 30th straight day with an infection rate below 1% (and they are doing a ton of testing).
https://www.axios.com/new-york-covid-infection-rate-below-1-percent-f3b115ea-1a2f-48ca-99c8-12b9898c533c.html
Also, just logic shows the key differences.
Protests:
- Heavily masked, with some social distancing
- Almost exclusively outside
- Made up of people typically local to the area
Sturgis:
- Hardly any masks and little regard for social distancing
- Plenty of high-volume activity in enclosed bars & clubs
- People came from hundreds of miles, so if they got sick, they spread it widely
September 8th, 2020 at 11:13 AM ^
Please DON'T equivocate.
September 8th, 2020 at 11:54 AM ^
You already know the answer to this. As long as you are gathering for one of two reasons you are immune to the virus: Marxist protests is the obvious one. The second is any gathering socially approved by the leftist media. Sturgis obviously fits neither.
Remember comrades: wear your mask, hang your picture of Stalin or Mao above the mantle, and this too shall pass.
September 8th, 2020 at 1:39 PM ^
Marxist protests is the obvious one.
How far we have fallen. Your brain... it's not so good.
To try to twist long overdue protests against police brutality on minorities, into anything to do with Marxism, Socialism, Communism, or any other kind of bullshit is beyond pathetic. It's disgusting, shameful, and a flat out lie. I don't think you're a very good human being, if that's truly how you think, and that's saying it mildly because the banhammer has been swinging pretty good lately.
You have allowed yourself to be deluded by people who care nothing for you, your family, your health, the Earth, truth, or really anything besides lining their pockets. You're not a very smart human being, and you're contributing to what is almost inevitably the downfall of this once great nation.
Wake the fuck up. Almost all of this dumb shit is straight out of the FSB's playbook. I really thought we were better than this as a society. But we are not.
September 8th, 2020 at 4:15 PM ^
It's neo-marxist, marxian. Stupid people still think class struggle when they read "marxist". people who have been paying attention know that this merged with the black power movement decades ago. People supporting these protests/riots are racial supremacists even if they're too stupid to realize it
September 8th, 2020 at 4:17 PM ^
Jesus, dude.
September 8th, 2020 at 10:46 AM ^
South Dakota means business!
September 8th, 2020 at 10:49 AM ^
The OP's username smacks of medical knowledge.
September 8th, 2020 at 10:52 AM ^
Why do you hate prophylactics?
September 8th, 2020 at 11:15 AM ^
Yeah, these studies. There was a study out of the University of Colorado in June that said that the late spring protests resulted in NEGATIVE CoronaVirus cases. Less cases than there would have been without protests.
Point being: you can find a study to fit ANY particular narrative these sort of days.
------
I'm going to do a back-of-the-envelope data analysis here. Interested in others thoughts:
The number of confirmed cases from Sturgis is about 300 (that 250,000 number from the study is doing a whole shit-ton of extrapolating and counting of unconfirmed cases).
Doing an apples-to-apples comparison of confirmed cases in America as a whole in August, we averaged about 45,000 daily.
Anyway: 500,000 people were at Sturgis. There are about 330MM Americans. 330MM/500,000 * 300 = 198,000, which is about equal to 4.25 days of confirmed daily cases in America for August.
Given Sturgis was a 4-5 day event: I'd argue that Sturgis had ZERO significant incremental effect (positive or negative) in terms of virus spread in America. I'd argue it was no more or less dangerous than any of the other hundreds of things Americans were doing that weekend.
September 8th, 2020 at 11:44 AM ^
I was skeptical of the idea that Sturgis would result in a huge surge.
I haven't read the whole paper and I don't plan to read it. (Not enough time ...)
I'm open to what you've presented here. A couple of references (for example, for the 300 confirmed cases) would be helpful.
September 8th, 2020 at 11:47 AM ^
Sure. Here's where I've referenced the 300 number from (this article is from 4-September):
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/09/03/south-dakota-covi…
America's daily average of confirmed cases for the month of August from here:
September 8th, 2020 at 11:16 AM ^
If you think this is intelligent analysis, you should probably be put in jail
"We are further able to document national spread due to the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally, although that spread also appears to have been successfully mitigated by states with strict infection mitigation policies. In counties with the largest relative inflow to the event, the per 1,000 case rate increased by 10.7 percent after 24 days following the onset of Sturgis Pre-Rally Events. Multiplying the percent case increases for the high, moderate-high and moderate inflow counties by each county’s respective pre-rally cumulative COVID-19 cases and aggregating, yields a total of 263,708 additional cases in these locations due to the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally. Adding the number of new cases due to the Rally in South Dakota estimated by synthetic control (3.6 per 1,000 population, scaled by the South Dakota population of approximately 858,000) brings the total number of cases to 266,796 or 19 percent of 1.4 million new cases of COVID-19 in the United States between August 2nd 2020 and September 2nd 2020. If we conservatively assume that all of these cases were non-fatal, then these cases represent a cost of over $12.2 billion, based on the statistical cost of a COVID-19 case of $46,000 estimated by Kniesner and Sullivan (2020)."
Really stupid assumptions in this paper include, but are not limited to the following:
1. ALL case increases in any county with moderate to high contribution of rally goers was deemed to have been caused by the rally.
2. % Increase in CUMULATIVE cases of these counties over 24 DAYS is what was measured as the effect of this discrete event in South Dakota
-Eg: I looked at Maricopa county in Arizona because I know Arizona keeps good, county-level data and it was one of the 7 high inflow counties mentioned in the body of the paper. Calculated the % change in their metric over that 24 day period and HOLY SHIT it was a ~7.3% difference in the cumulative total. Not as high as the 10.2% they claim for that group, but damn, that's a lot, right? Let's take a peak at that case spike in Maricopa county. The 7 day moving average of new cases moving into that 24 day period in question wasssss 692 new cases per day. Damn, it must have gotten way worse after that horde of dirty bikers descended back upon the town, right? Lets look at average new cases at the end of that 24 day period. 308. Damn, what an explosion. So how did they make that look really bad when cases were actually steadily dropping over that entire time period at a relatively constant exponential rate of decay? Simple, they just said that all new cases in an area where it was already endemic (and declining) were attributable to an event that was 1000 miles away because reasons.
3. After 2, i dont even really care to keep going, to be honest. That's ridiculous. Intelligent people can take it from there, stupid people already stopped reading anyway