More than 100 Covid cases (so far) in 8 States traced to Sturgis Rally...who knew?

[Catwoman]

48 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

Hopefully many task forces have included a variety of experts.  In my experience, I have not seen that.  I have also seen people suggest that epidemiologists, virologists, and public health employees are the experts who do not have political or other motivations but those from other disciplines are motivated by politics and or financial gain and should not be making decisions.  

 

It is so disheartening that we even need to consider the motivations of the people in charge of keeping the population safe in the middle of a pandemic, but the fact that what appears to be a substantial percentage of the general public feels that they can’t trust our leadership and/or public health experts on this issue is a huge problem.

The only motivation should be public health. But it isn’t. And that is appalling.

[Moonhawk]

16 hours ago, Frances said:

At least in my state, the Governor’s Office put together a task force with all different types of experts to make decisions about the response to the pandemic. I just assumed most states did something similar, but maybe not.

 

1 hour ago, Bootsie said:

Hopefully many task forces have included a variety of experts.  In my experience, I have not seen that.  I have also seen people suggest that epidemiologists, virologists, and public health employees are the experts who do not have political or other motivations but those from other disciplines are motivated by politics and or financial gain and should not be making decisions.  

 

I'd be interested to see how different states are composing their task forces, the restrictions/allowances they are taking, and their outcomes so far. 

For Arizona, I saw this in the news earlier: "Long-term planning group for COVID-19 no longer in place in Arizona."   Seeing as the ASU-made Arizona-specific models were deemed unnecessary early in the pandemic and the governor disregarded their now-proven-true projections, I would not say I am surprised with our state government's approach on the long term side. As in, they keep saying their current plan  "keep doing what we're doing", and there is a long term plan .... they just don't know who's in charge of it or what it is, but it definitely exists. (Obviously, much more nicely put.) 

 

[GoodGrief]

16 hours ago, Bootsie said:

I know a number of people who have degrees in public health and who work in public health that have NOT studied the things that you mention.  Some might, but they are definitely not experts in the area.  

Daughter of a retired CDC epidemiologist and wife of a current "public health professional", and friend/acquaintance of countless public health pros. I was a public health professional at one point myself. They study those things, but are certainly not experts.

Edited August 30, 2020 by GoodGrief

[Bootsie]

33 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

 

It is so disheartening that we even need to consider the motivations of the people in charge of keeping the population safe in the middle of a pandemic, but the fact that what appears to be a substantial percentage of the general public feels that they can’t trust our leadership and/or public health experts on this issue is a huge problem.

The only motivation should be public health. But it isn’t. And that is appalling.

I would disagree that the only motivation should be public health.  If I were president, I would be very concerned about COVID-19, but I would also be concerned about public safety, national security, education, food security, etc.  The public health experts are experts on the issue of public health, but the issues of people go beyond public health.  A tough job of leadership is balancing those issues, which are sometimes at odds with each other.   

[Terabith]

7 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I would disagree that the only motivation should be public health.  If I were president, I would be very concerned about COVID-19, but I would also be concerned about public safety, national security, education, food security, etc.  The public health experts are experts on the issue of public health, but the issues of people go beyond public health.  A tough job of leadership is balancing those issues, which are sometimes at odds with each other.   

Well, yes.....the president needs to balance all of those things.  But I'd hope he would be getting advice from public health professionals whose only focus is on what is best for public health.  In the same way, I'd hope he'd get education advice from professional educators whose concerns are the best education possible for the most kids.  The president's job is to make hard decisions; all the easy decisions were made before they got to his desk.  

[Catwoman]

54 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I would disagree that the only motivation should be public health.  If I were president, I would be very concerned about COVID-19, but I would also be concerned about public safety, national security, education, food security, etc.  The public health experts are experts on the issue of public health, but the issues of people go beyond public health.  A tough job of leadership is balancing those issues, which are sometimes at odds with each other.   

 

Ummmm..... what?  

We were talking about the Covid response, not about national security, education, or food security. 

I have no idea why you interpreted my post the way you did, but you definitely misunderstood my meaning. I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear, but I don’t think there is a single person on this planet who would think the leaders of a nation would have only one responsibility. 

[Catwoman]

50 minutes ago, Terabith said:

Well, yes.....the president needs to balance all of those things.  But I'd hope he would be getting advice from public health professionals whose only focus is on what is best for public health.  In the same way, I'd hope he'd get education advice from professional educators whose concerns are the best education possible for the most kids.  The president's job is to make hard decisions; all the easy decisions were made before they got to his desk.  

 

I agree. And I thought we were talking exclusively about the Covid response, not about the general responsibilities of a national leader.

My point was that politics and political ambitions should not be the driver of public health decisions in the middle of an international pandemic.

[Bootsie]

18 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

 

Ummmm..... what?  

We were talking about the Covid response, not about national security, education, or food security. 

I have no idea why you interpreted my post the way you did, but you definitely misunderstood my meaning. I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear, but I don’t think there is a single person on this planet who would think the leaders of a nation would have only one responsibility. 

I am sorry if I misunderstood your post.  I was reading it in the context of the posts of others, and not simply your post.  

It is not that a leader of a nation, state, county, or any other entity has only one responsibility, but that the response to one of these issues impacts the other issues.  Any COVID response impacts many other priorities. It is not made in isolation.  So, I do not think it is helpful to think of a COVID response only being motivated out of public health.  

[Moonhawk]

13 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

 

I agree with you. The COVID response does have to balance public health with all of those other concerns. As far as I can find out, CA has different task forces for different parts of dealing with it. There's a testing one, an economic recovery one, etc.

I think that's great and a smart way to look at it. As I was reading the Arizona-based article, one of the things they were talking about was what a task fore should be doing, and she basically boiled it down to an emergency/crisis response and management. Not just about public health, but dealing with the economic impacts, housing, health and social services, etc. I think there were 6 factors they look at? Because at this point, the long-term plan isn't about Covid, it's managing the crisis it's created.

eta: ideally not just the long term plans should be covering this, but also the short term plans, just to be clear that I don't think the other areas can really wait til we get to "long term", whenever that may be. 

Edited August 30, 2020 by Moonhawk

[Catwoman]

16 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I am sorry if I misunderstood your post.  I was reading it in the context of the posts of others, and not simply your post.  

It is not that a leader of a nation, state, county, or any other entity has only one responsibility, but that the response to one of these issues impacts the other issues.  Any COVID response impacts many other priorities. It is not made in isolation.  So, I do not think it is helpful to think of a COVID response only being motivated out of public health.  

 

Thanks — no problem! 🙂 

I agree with you that there are many factors that come into play in an overall Covid response. My main point was that I don’t think politics or political ambitions should be the motivation for public health decisions.

[kbutton]

 

On 8/29/2020 at 5:38 PM, frogger said:

The problem is in order to even have rules you have to have buy in or rules are just words on a paper. Many people will actually do helpful things without being mandated to if they didn't think it was all a hoax or just a cold. This is where you sadly, have to use emotion. Of course, you must be honest too. How to get a population to think it's worth being cooperative and not scare the more sensitive percentage into complete isolation and mental health breakdowns is a challenge but honesty is key, I believe.

This is why it is especially galling to me that there are so many conspiracy theories around the virus and the measures to control it. 

On 8/29/2020 at 5:49 PM, Liz CA said:

Very good point. This reminds me of the concept of the "Wise Mind." Emotional and rational are on opposite sides and the little overlap in the middle is the "Wise Mind." If there is no buy-in, we have little or no cooperation. I am wondering if we will ever achieve that since the issue is so polarized now. I don't even have to look up articles, I can see it here on the board.

I keep hoping that we'll have some kind of shift where established facts gain more traction as the conspiracy theory crowd loses their platform and/or people share better information. 

So many people I know are not conspiracy theorists, but they are sharing information tainted by conspiracy theories. It's gross. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

And now the SD State Fair is going on this weekend. Estimated attendance 205,000 people. Masks are encouraged but not required. But there is no way to social distance with that many people. 
 

I can’t get my phone to link the article. 

Edited September 4, 2020 by Jean in Newcastle
typo

[TCB]

3 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

And now the SD State Fair is going on this weekend. Estimated attendance 205,000 people. Masks are encouraged but not requiring. But there is no way to social distance with that many people. 
 

I can’t get my phone to link the article. 

I just looked at a chart this morning that showed SD’s infection rate and infection density were way up there. Don’t know what’s going on with their hospitalizations.

[frogger]

11 minutes ago, kand said:

 

I don’t understand what the plan or end game is there. It seems like many lower population areas that early on didn’t feel like Covid was relevant to them are having trouble leaving that way of thinking behind once they find themself becoming a hot spot. It’s almost like a fingers in the ears kind of response. 

 

Psychologically it is much more difficult to change your mind than it is to make a decision in the first place. Humans have a strong urge to not be wrong. If a person's initial decision was, "We need to stay open until we are actually having cases and will be in trouble." it will be easier for them to switch gears then if they latched on to "this is a city problem", or other even less helpful ideas.

Edited September 4, 2020 by frogger
Spelling

[Jean in Newcastle]

12 minutes ago, kand said:

 

I don’t understand what the plan or end game is there. It seems like many lower population areas that early on didn’t feel like Covid was relevant to them are having trouble leaving that way of thinking behind once they find themself becoming a hot spot. It’s almost like a fingers in the ears kind of response. 

Now that I am at my computer I can link one article.  This one says that the governor "railed against an 'elite class of so called experts.'"  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/09/03/south-dakota-covid-19-sturgis-rally-state-fair-kristi-noem/5709042002/

[katilac]

5 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Now that I am at my computer I can link one article.  This one says that the governor "railed against an 'elite class of so called experts.'"  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/09/03/south-dakota-covid-19-sturgis-rally-state-fair-kristi-noem/5709042002/

Oh, man, experts are elitist now? We don't need them elite experts with their, y'know, expertise and training and all! I'm just going to let my barber remove my gall bladder, I don't need some fancy-pants surgeon. 

I don't even necessarily oppose having certain outdoor events, but the article shows she's pretty all-in on no masks and not listening to experts. She could have made this particular decision while modeling that reasonable people can disagree in a reasonable manner - we took the advice of various experts into account, and we concluded that having the fair, with precautions in place, is a reasonable decision. Same outcome, without presenting experts in their field as people to be mocked and dismissed. What a terrible message for the young people in her state in particular. 

[MEmama]

6 minutes ago, katilac said:

Oh, man, experts are elitist now? We don't need them elite experts with their, y'know, expertise and training and all! I'm just going to let my barber remove my gall bladder, I don't need some fancy-pants surgeon. 

I don't even necessarily oppose having certain outdoor events, but the article shows she's pretty all-in on no masks and not listening to experts. She could have made this particular decision while modeling that reasonable people can disagree in a reasonable manner - we took the advice of various experts into account, and we concluded that having the fair, with precautions in place, is a reasonable decision. Same outcome, without presenting experts in their field as people to be mocked and dismissed. What a terrible message for the young people in her state in particular. 

My in-laws believe this. FIL is basically an invalid due to fixable knee problems but he won’t go to a doctor because he believes they don’t know anything. He thinks this even though his own brother is a surgeon. Nope, he’d rather give up on life entirely than trust a you know, trained professional. I used to feel sorry for him but now I think it’s just pathetic.
 

It is amazing to me how pervasive this attitude is. 😞 I guess it helps explain some of the mental gymnastics people choose to perform in order to justify their actions/inaction. 

[Corraleno]

A Minnesota man in his 60s who attended the rally has died of Covid.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/02/health/sturgis-motorcycle-rally-covid-death/index.html 

Edited September 4, 2020 by Corraleno
add link

[ktgrok]

What's funny is so many people that think experts are elitist seem to also spend a ton of time and energy following pro sports players - who are, you know, experts. And in fact, called "elite" athletes. Go figure. 

[Wheres Toto]

3 hours ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

And now the SD State Fair is going on this weekend. Estimated attendance 205,000 people. Masks are encouraged but not required. But there is no way to social distance with that many people. 
 

I can’t get my phone to link the article. 

You know there will be very few masks being worn if they're not mandated.  Those people who want to be cautious are probably not attending the fair in the first place.  😞

[Catwoman]

5 hours ago, kand said:

 

I don’t understand what the plan or end game is there. It seems like many lower population areas that early on didn’t feel like Covid was relevant to them are having trouble leaving that way of thinking behind once they find themself becoming a hot spot. It’s almost like a fingers in the ears kind of response. 

 

5 hours ago, frogger said:

 

Psychologically it is much more difficult to change your mind than it is to make a decision in the first place. Humans have a strong urge to not be wrong. If a person's initial decision was, "We need to stay open until we are actually having cases and will be in trouble." it will be easier for them to switch gears then if they latched on to "this is a city problem", or other even less helpful ideas.

 

Personally, I think the attitude is primarily political and has very little to do with anything other than that. It’s charitable to say that it’s a psychological issue, but I’m having a very hard time believing that’s the case with most of the people who refuse to take the virus seriously.

[MEmama]

Going back to spread, there was a wedding in a teeny tiny remote town in my state that has caused 147 positive cases and 3 deaths around the state to date. The fallout has extended to a jail and a nursing home, and has caused an entire county to change its back to school status from green (safe for in person) to yellow. It seems like every day  the numbers grow, and now the head of our state CDC is afraid we might have lost grip of the situation.

I know 147 positive cases over a month or so wouldn’t be many for a lot of states, but that’s huge here. Like, potentially game changing huge. I wonder how the couple must feel, that their need for a big party—over state guidelines— has resulted in not only the states largest outbreak, not only disrupting back to school plans for an entire county (some 200 miles away),, but 3 DEATHS (so far). What could possibly be worth that? 😞 

[Ottakee]

On 9/5/2020 at 6:04 PM, Happymomof1 said:

 

It just seems like a crap shoot. So many have no or minor symptoms. Then someone draws the magic bean and has a bad outcome. Some can be tied to certain factors like obesity or diabetes, but not all.  What makes those people the outliers? My husband keeps reminding me that the numbers are actually very, very small percentage wise. I guess as a doctor he takes things in stride more than I do.  I go down the worst possible scenario road. But he keeps telling me that what I am fearing hasn't happened here. We need to be cautious, but live our lives.

This is where it is hard as the numbers really are very very low.  Any churches, bars, gatherings, etc have no spread at all, but then there is one that does....and it makes the news big time.

I am in the cautious but live our lives camp.

[AmandaVT]

3 hours ago, kand said:

I just saw this, but will not have a chance to read it until tomorrow. The conclusion states more than 250,000 new cases of Covid as a result of the Sturgis rally, and a public health cost of more than $12 billion. 
http://ftp.iza.org/dp13670.pdf

I just saw this too - the same company determined that Trump's Tulsa rally and the BLM protests caused no surge, so they seem apolitical. 

[TravelingChris]

I am in South Dakota now.  I am at Custer State Park, which is of course a state run institution.  The state employees are wearing masks.  I don't remember if masks required or masks encouraged was the sign in front of the visitor centers, but we, of course, wore our masks as did the staff and many visitors.

Now what I didst understand was tge people masking upon Sunday while hiking around the Devil's Tower.  This was obviously outside and no one was hiking right next to anyone except  a member of their own party.

And no, we didn't attend the state fair or the Sturgis Mustang Rally that was this weekend.  I see the same face masking and social distancing here as I saw in other states 

We did drive through Sturgis but didn't get out.

 

 

 

[Junie]

On 9/4/2020 at 6:10 PM, MEmama said:

Going back to spread, there was a wedding in a teeny tiny remote town in my state that has caused 147 positive cases and 3 deaths around the state to date. The fallout has extended to a jail and a nursing home, and has caused an entire county to change its back to school status from green (safe for in person) to yellow. It seems like every day  the numbers grow, and now the head of our state CDC is afraid we might have lost grip of the situation.

I know 147 positive cases over a month or so wouldn’t be many for a lot of states, but that’s huge here. Like, potentially game changing huge. I wonder how the couple must feel, that their need for a big party—over state guidelines— has resulted in not only the states largest outbreak, not only disrupting back to school plans for an entire county (some 200 miles away),, but 3 DEATHS (so far). What could possibly be worth that? 😞 

And this is exactly why we are staying home.

We are not going anywhere except for groceries and once in a while the hardware store. 

ETA: We have also had a few doctor's appointments.

Some of my kids haven't left our property since March.

We are enjoying our time together at home.  Fellowship with others can wait until the virus is better controlled.

I guess I think of this virus like a snowstorm.  Right now there are a couple of feet of snow on the ground... and it's still snowing.  I'm staying home.

Edited September 8, 2020 by Junie

[Farrar]

I haven't been following this thread closely, but has this been discussed? 250,000 cases estimated to have been caused directly or indirectly by that rally?!? That's... I mean, I know this is just an estimate and not direct tracing cases, but holy crap. The methodology is back end - looking at the patterns in the bump that places had directly following the rally. I think it's got to be an overestimate, but still.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/09/08/sturgis-motorcycle-rally-may-have-caused-250000-coronavirus-cases-economists-say/#7e4ab1cc45fa

[catz]

2 hours ago, Seasider too said:

IIRC that path around the tower is narrow in spots. I’d have at least had a mask at the ready. 

This is my memory of that trail too.  If I were going to be passing within 6 feet of others regularly or be following in a stranger's wake for more than in passnig, I'd certainly have one at the ready.

The other thing I see in my neighborhood is people from 2 different households walking together masked.  Generally if you are out walking in our neighborhood, there is no real reason to mask.  I walk about an hour most days and make it a goal never to get within 20 feet of anyone.  Rarely am I closer and these are like moments of interaction passing on  the street.  So I never mask walking here.  I do carry one.  Anyway, people from multiple households may have decided to mask for their interactions as well.   And we're in an urban neighborhood with known covid cases.  I will say rural counties are doing worse than the urban ones in our state right now.  

[MEmama]

1 hour ago, FuzzyCatz said:

This is my memory of that trail too.  If I were going to be passing within 6 feet of others regularly or be following in a stranger's wake for more than in passnig, I'd certainly have one at the ready.

The other thing I see in my neighborhood is people from 2 different households walking together masked.  Generally if you are out walking in our neighborhood, there is no real reason to mask.  I walk about an hour most days and make it a goal never to get within 20 feet of anyone.  Rarely am I closer and these are like moments of interaction passing on  the street.  So I never mask walking here.  I do carry one.  Anyway, people from multiple households may have decided to mask for their interactions as well.   And we're in an urban neighborhood with known covid cases.  I will say rural counties are doing worse than the urban ones in our state right now.  

I’m seeing a lot more people masking when walking or even cycling in our neighbourhood too. Perhaps different families explains some of it. Also, students are walking around masked, not just on campus. And pretty much everyone I see outside downtown is masked. I’m also noticing a lot of kids wearing masks walking and biking around the neighbourhood, even little ones. I assume their parents are getting them prepared for going back to school. 
 

I don’t usually wear a mask when I’m out walking, except on campus where it’s required, but I do carry one just in case. Most people are really aware of others, and people are always crossing the street to avoid each other. Almost always it’s accompanied by a wave and laugh, or a funny remark about our collective social avoidance.

We went to a beach the other day and everyone on the trails were masked. Once out on the rocks it depended on how isolated they could get from others. There’s almost always lots of space at the beaches here but it was nice to see people being courteous and smart. (Also, a PSA for anyone wanting to visit Maine State Parks this fall, there was a huge sign at the entrance kiosk warning that everyone from out of state must either be tested or have quarantined for 2 weeks prior to being admitted. 2 cars from NY in front of us turned around). 

Edited September 8, 2020 by MEmama

[ktgrok]

On 9/5/2020 at 6:04 PM, Happymomof1 said:

Because it is the law of averages.  How many weddings have been held where that DIDN'T happen.  I've known 4 or 5 weddings that have taken place and nothing happened. I mean our church has been open for months. No spread. My best friends's son is getting married in October and my husband and I are going. We will mask. We will socially distance. I don't see how going to the wedding is any different than going to church.  They are having a reception somewhere else. Probably won't go to that part, but I will have to find out more information to decide for sure. The answer to your question is people do not think it will happen to them.  

It just seems like a crap shoot. So many have no or minor symptoms. Then someone draws the magic bean and has a bad outcome. Some can be tied to certain factors like obesity or diabetes, but not all.  What makes those people the outliers? My husband keeps reminding me that the numbers are actually very, very small percentage wise. I guess as a doctor he takes things in stride more than I do.  I go down the worst possible scenario road. But he keeps telling me that what I am fearing hasn't happened here. We need to be cautious, but live our lives.

So...it's worth having a wedding because you probably won't cause several people to die, and an entire school district to shut down...and if you do well....hey bad luck. 

I mean, do you think that couple is now thinking, "yeah, 3 people died because our wedding, and a bunch of parents are scrambling for child care but it was worth it!"

[Moonhawk]

27 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

So...it's worth having a wedding because you probably won't cause several people to die, and an entire school district to shut down...and if you do well....hey bad luck. 

I mean, do you think that couple is now thinking, "yeah, 3 people died because our wedding, and a bunch of parents are scrambling for child care but it was worth it!"

Truthfully, they are probably in denial of any responsibility and are instead blaming whatever guest brought it there. If they do feel guilt I feel very badly for them, because that is going to be a very heavy burden to bear, and it's now tied to their wedding memories.

But yes, this is a problem, the idea of averages. Not because it isn't necessarily true, but we do not act logically on the idea, and instead ALL think we are the lucky cases and act as such. And we all know *we* must be the safe side of the average because we tend to learn based on our past experiences and results. If nothing has happened to us so far, we have "learned" that nothing will happen to us.

But past performance does not guarantee future results, especially in an environment such as this. Which is why even though I seem overly cautious to some, I am not letting things "slide" because someone else did and didn't get hurt. 

And I would argue that the "sliding" IS actually hurting people with its after effects: more and more people breaking the rules and going against recommendations, just because so-and-so did so and nothing bad happened to them. But now surprise surprise, we have bigger problems. Just because not everyone gets hurt doesn't mean anyone can just do what they like. 

How many other rallies and public events were held since it seemed Sturgis went on okay and for a few weeks there was no huge number reported? How many people decided that it all must be a hoax since the rally didn't have people falling over and dying throughout the event?

We aren't logical enough as a group to figure out how to make the "law of averages" actually apply to our daily living. So that's why the restrictions have to be focused on the worse case scenarios. Not because it is necessary in every case, but because it is necessary overall. 

(eta: what's kind of funny to me is that I am not an anxious or worry type of person. I am not the person to stay up at night worrying about things out of my control, or even in my control once I have a plan of what needs to be done. It's just not my personality. This isn't me "living in fear", it just makes sense not to do these things that have a negative impact on society at large. DH does all the worrying for both of us and probably enough for half the block, too, so I am not used to being on the side arguing for more caution, lol.)

Edited September 8, 2020 by Moonhawk

[Ausmumof3]

http://ftp.iza.org/dp13670.pdf
I haven’t followed this thread very closely but has this paper been shared yet?  I haven’t read it in depth but their estimated cost to public health from the increase in cases linked to the rally is $12.2B

[Bootsie]

39 minutes ago, Bagels McGruffikin said:

To quote from the article:

Essentially, the researchers assumed that new cases in areas where people went post-rally must have been spread by those rally attendees, despite there being no particular evidence that this was the case.

 

They did not assume that new cases in these areas were tied to the rally, they assumed that the increase in new cases, relative to areas which did not have attendees, were tied to the rally.

[EmseB]

8 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

They did not assume that new cases in these areas were tied to the rally, they assumed that the increase in new cases, relative to areas which did not have attendees, were tied to the rally.

But essentially what I'm seeing is this is modeling, with a ton of assumptions, that people are reporting as actual data. People in my circles that are posting this have no idea the difference between a white paper and a study. Or maybe they don't care.

[EmseB]

Despite the snarky first tweet, here's some data.

[Farrar]

50 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

They did not assume that new cases in these areas were tied to the rally, they assumed that the increase in new cases, relative to areas which did not have attendees, were tied to the rally.

Exactly. Because these aren't states that are doing a very good job of contact tracing, we know that 260 cases is way too low. The 250,000+ cases is probably too high. But that is a heck of an increase to happen after what was a perfect storm of a high risk event. It's definitely speculation... but the increase in cases was dramatic and the rally was the most likely culprit for a large portion of the increase.

[Farrar]

Comparing the Sturgis rally - where people spent extensive time indoors together, over several days, unmasked to large protests where people spent a day in a crowd outside masked is apples and oranges.

[Farrar]

1 minute ago, Bagels McGruffikin said:

Problem is, schools were similarly timed. Teasing out what may be due to fall activities and what may be the rally is tough. But the numbers were practically garbage for both cases and money amount, despite wide reporting. 

I agree. I think schools are a part of it. And the rally is likely as well. It's modeling. We don't have enough data to know for sure.

[TCB]

2 hours ago, Bagels McGruffikin said:

https://reason.com/2020/09/09/no-the-sturgis-motorcycle-rally-didnt-spawn-250000-coronavirus-cases/?amp&__twitter_impression=true

To me it would seem that both are probably incorrect. And this is the thing that is so annoying about this whole thing - 2 extremes on everything. It’s pretty crazy to say you know that the astronomical number was caused by Sturgis, but it’s also disingenuous to say that only the actual direct cases are linked - we all know that a chain of infection can be caused, and none of us know how far that chain goes. Heaven preserve us from the partisan reporting of stuff from both the left and the right! 

[Corraleno]

RE: school openings skewing the numbers... Unless schools only opened in areas that coincidentally also had large numbers of rally attendees, school openings shouldn't be a large percentage of the cases attributed to Sturgis, since they only counted the increase in areas-with-attendees that exceeded the levels of increase in areas-without-attendees. Any of those areas may also have had other super spreader events, like the wedding that led to 147 cases, but those would also presumably occur in areas without rally attendees. I do think the figure of 250K is probably too high, but mostly because I suspect that areas where lots of people went to Sturgis may be generally less inclined to mask, distance, limit gatherings, etc., so the modeling may be picking up some increases in those areas that are just due to less care in general. OTOH, those are also the conditions that make it much more likely for infected Sturgis attendees to spread it around their own communities.

[TCB]

26 minutes ago, Bagels McGruffikin said:

Problem is, schools were similarly timed. Teasing out what may be due to fall activities and what may be the rally is tough. But the numbers were practically garbage for both cases and money amount, despite wide reporting. 

So then it seems like yet again some want it both ways:

Schools cause minimal spread so it’s safe to open them 

Schools are just as likely to cause the increase in cases

 

Which is it? I’m so sick of the hypocrisy displayed by so many! It’s no wonder people don’t know what to think. This is a right wing example but there are plenty on the left too!

[TCB]

1 minute ago, happysmileylady said:

Although I certainly do agree with you....I think the problem with including indirectly linked cases in one case is that often.....that's not reported in other cases.  For example, I mentioned University of Alabama.  A very quick google shows that they are already up to over 2k cases.  But that's ONLY what's directly linked.  But how many indrect cases.....well there's no study on that.  

And, to take it a step further.....at what point in the chain do we stop connecting the cases?  Is it after the first transmission outside the event?  The second transmission?  The fifth?

Yes it’s impossible to know - especially when not really doing that much contact tracing. 
I’m just cranky about it because we have 3 members of the same family in our unit right now, and there’s a number more still at home, and it’s crazy the impact that one person catching it can have.

[Corraleno]

3 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Although I certainly do agree with you....I think the problem with including indirectly linked cases in one case is that often.....that's not reported in other cases.  For example, I mentioned University of Alabama.  A very quick google shows that they are already up to over 2k cases.  But that's ONLY what's directly linked.  But how many indrect cases.....well there's no study on that.  

And, to take it a step further.....at what point in the chain do we stop connecting the cases?  Is it after the first transmission outside the event?  The second transmission?  The fifth?

But this paper is not comparing the numbers from Sturgis to other cases where only direct transmission is counted — no one is saying, "UA only has 2000 cases, but Sturgis resulted in 250K."  The numbers in the Sturgis paper are based on modeling and estimates, not contact tracing — comparing them is apples & oranges. 

 

[Moonhawk]

13 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

So.....why do a paper on the Sturgis rally and not do a paper on Bama?  What is the purpose of quantifying the indirect spread of an event of over 400k people.....that is over....with only 260 directly linked cases.....but NOT quantifying the indrect spread over over 2k cases generated by an ongoing situation with 40k people are attending?   Why choose one but not the other?

Well I'm not the paper writers, but a few immediate thoughts spring to mind:

1) Sturgis is done so they can look at data from a set point and time period and follow the trail much easier than having new data continuously generated

2) Maybe they are doing a Bama paper, but if Sturgis was chronologically first it would make sense if they started it earlier. Or, even if they were concurrent, one has to be done first. 

3) Sturgis has a national impact because it was a rally that brought multiple people together traveling interstate both to the rally then back. This is similar to the studies they did on other rally events. (And they may have a better model tailored to this type of travel tracing as opposed to a method for a localized but growing thing).

eta 3a) There are tons of colleges and universities opening all over the country. These paper writers probably can't do all of these universities. It makes sense for them to focus on one-off events. And the universities and states they are in are probably doing studies on the school impacts already. At least I hope so. Eventually we will see comparison studies of different universities at least.

Edited September 9, 2020 by Moonhawk

[Corraleno]

11 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

So.....why do a paper on the Sturgis rally and not do a paper on Bama?  What is the purpose of quantifying the indirect spread of an event of over 400k people.....that is over....with only 260 directly linked cases.....but NOT quantifying the indrect spread over over 2k cases generated by an ongoing situation with 40k people are attending?   Why choose one but not the other?

Because there's vastly more data available for analysis in an event with nearly half a million attendees, and the event had a specific end date, which provides a discrete time frame in which to measure the increase in cases in areas with attendees. The number of UA students who may have already returned home to other states is minuscule compared to the 450K rally attendees who returned to other states, and therefore the UA sample is too small to provide any meaningful data. 

[Moonhawk]

Just now, happysmileylady said:

I do totally agree with your first point.

Your second....I don't believe they are working on a Bama paper at all.  

On your third point.....I think that large universities like Bama do have a national impact.  International even.  Especially as some colleges change things up and suddenly start sending people home.  So I am not sure that makes Bama all that different.....Size does, but then given the difference in direct cases......I dunno.

 

Fair enough, I agree about the second point. As I was thinking more that kind of made the 3a. I guess the more general point is: they can do only so many studies at a time, and I don't expect Sturgis to be the last.

And true, if Bama starts to send people home that will definitely have a larger impact. But it's again a growing problem, not set in a time period yet, and we are going to see this happen all across the country (potentially) with other universities as well that will also have potential international impact. I guess the writers could choose one university to study, but then why not this other one or that other one? If studies are already being done on Bama they may want to look at events that don't have an obvious research body interested in it already.

But I do hope we see studies on Bama and others sooner rather than later. 

[EmseB]

1 hour ago, Farrar said:

Comparing the Sturgis rally - where people spent extensive time indoors together, over several days, unmasked to large protests where people spent a day in a crowd outside masked is apples and oranges.

People keep saying this as though protestors never go inside anywhere and that there was anything close to 100% masking.

It's like protestors somehow are covid saints.

[Bootsie]

56 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

So.....why do a paper on the Sturgis rally and not do a paper on Bama?  What is the purpose of quantifying the indirect spread of an event of over 400k people.....that is over....with only 260 directly linked cases.....but NOT quantifying the indrect spread over over 2k cases generated by an ongoing situation with 40k people are attending?   Why choose one but not the other?

If you look at the bibliography in the paper, you will see that the authors have been working on other papers regarding contagion and spread of COVID in other situations, not just Sturgis.  I do not see one directly mentioning Bama, so I don't know if these specific authors are looking at that specific situation or not, but of course, the authors have limited hours in a day and limited computer power to build a model for every possible event in a month's time.  

Why did they choose Sturgis (and not Bama--assuming that they are not working on that also), from a methodological standpoint there are a number of reasons.  The methodology they are using, which they may be experts in, is not as well-suited for a situation where there are a number of people who are in one place for a period of time.  This would be like criticizing someone who is doing research on one particular cancer treatment that they are specialist in rather than doing research on another type of treatment.  

From what I have seen, reporters from both sides are taking academic research out of context and overstating the results  The authors clearly state what their methodology is and acknowledge the limitations of it.  On one side the reporters have glossed over these statements by the study authors, conveniently quoting sentences out of context and leaving the sentences that are in-between out.  On the other side, reporters attack the research saying that the authors are attributing new cases to Sturgis--which is clearly not correct.  

[TCB]

32 minutes ago, EmseB said:

People keep saying this as though protestors never go inside anywhere and that there was anything close to 100% masking.

It's like protestors somehow are covid saints.

Yeah amazing lol! Whatever they’ve got we should bottle it. My dd’s university has rules that are getting stricter all the time, which is the only thing they can do so I agree with them. But a week or so ago the rule was no events larger than 20 people, yet they somewhat supported a protest involving at least 800 students. 
The cause was a worthy one but very hypocritical to not sanction those who took part and yet they are disciplining students for sitting next to their friend, and not allowing other activities.

I know they had a right to protest and I support that right, but they should have also been given the responsibility of consequences, or you lose a bunch of compliance right there.

You may be able to tell that the widespread hypocrisy is getting to me lol!

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, Corraleno said:

RE: school openings skewing the numbers... Unless schools only opened in areas that coincidentally also had large numbers of rally attendees, school openings shouldn't be a large percentage of the cases attributed to Sturgis, since they only counted the increase in areas-with-attendees that exceeded the levels of increase in areas-without-attendees. Any of those areas may also have had other super spreader events, like the wedding that led to 147 cases, but those would also presumably occur in areas without rally attendees. I do think the figure of 250K is probably too high, but mostly because I suspect that areas where lots of people went to Sturgis may be generally less inclined to mask, distance, limit gatherings, etc., so the modeling may be picking up some increases in those areas that are just due to less care in general. OTOH, those are also the conditions that make it much more likely for infected Sturgis attendees to spread it around their own communities.

There are modelling issues and assumptions that have to be made, but there is also a problem with some of the raw data that the researchers have to work with.  There are a number of Texas counties in their study, for example.  I do not trust any of the numbers from Texas, especially during the month of August.  My local county had days where 2/3 of the cases being reported were OLD cases--with some dating as far back as March and April.  That means that the pre-Sturgis numbers were greatly underestimating the cases and post-Sturgis the reported numbers are over-estimating cases.  My county has broken reporting up by ZIP, but the college in the ZIP is reporting about 200% more cases than are be reporting for the entire ZIP.  It would be almost impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions about short-term transmission chains using any Texas data over the past few months, from what I can tell.