NY Times cites report saying NFL games with fans caused COVID spikes

[JÂy RÛßeÒ]

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/06/sports/football/nfl-stadium-capacity-covid.html

 

Quote

“All of us in the N.F.L. want to see every one of our fans back,” Goodell said in a conference call with reporters.
 

Yet new research submitted to The Lancet, a scientific journal, in late March suggested that there was a link between the games that had large numbers of fans in the stands and an increase in the number of infections in locales near the stadiums. The study, which is being peer reviewed, is one of the most comprehensive attempts to address the potential impact of fans at N.F.L. games.
 

The authors, led by Justin Kurland of the University of Southern Mississippi, used the number of positive cases not just from the counties where the 32 N.F.L. teams play, but also from surrounding counties to track the spread among fans who may have traveled to games from farther away. After adjusting the figures to eliminate potential false positives and days when counties did not report cases, they found surges in infection rates in the second and third weeks following N.F.L. games that were played with more than 5,000 fans in attendance. The study does not prove a causal link between fan attendance and Covid-19 cases, but suggests that there may be a relationship between the two.

 

“The evidence overwhelmingly supports that fan attendance at N.F.L. games led to episodic spikes” in the number of Covid-19 cases, the researchers wrote.

 

[Big Turk]

Would that still be the case if fans are now fully vaccinated?  Perhaps the answer is to let only allow people who have been fully vaccinated to attend then.

[Doc Brown]

"The study does not prove a causal link between fan attendance and Covid-19 cases, but suggests that there may be a relationship between the two."

 

Solid science there.  There's numerous other factors that could've lead to a spike in cases.

[Doc]

The Lancet.  LOL!

[RiotAct]

welp, there goes the neighborhood.   Purchasing my cardboard cutout in Section 133 as we speak.

[DrDawkinstein]

Just when @SDS thought it was safe to unpin the thread! Josh and the NYTs show him otherwise!

[Hapless Bills Fan]

45 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

Would that still be the case if fans are now fully vaccinated?  Perhaps the answer is to let only allow people who have been fully vaccinated to attend then.

 

No, should not, given the recent CDC study doing weekly testing of 4,000 HCW and showing that vaccines prevented 90% of all infections, not just symptomatic infections.  You not infected, you can't spread disease.

 

I also haven't gotten deep enough into it to see whether they looked at the impact of testing all the attendees as the Bills games did.

 

43 minutes ago, Doc said:

The Lancet.  LOL!

 

Not sure on the humor there?  Lancet is one of the top medical journals, has been for decades?

 

34 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

Just when @SDS thought it was safe to unpin the thread! Josh and the NYTs show him otherwise!

 

Yeah well, I just put it back.  I may get shot down for it, so those who would like to see that can beat the rush and buy tickets.

[Rochesterfan]

21 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

"The study does not prove a causal link between fan attendance and Covid-19 cases, but suggests that there may be a relationship between the two."

 

Solid science there.  There's numerous other factors that could've lead to a spike in cases.

 

Without doing DNA sequencing on all of the positive samples - they can only ever prove a Suggested link.  
 

What you see is spikes in and around the NFL stadiums (many different stadiums not just an over all link) and those match the timeframes of the game. 
 

Of course there are numerous factors that could lead to surges, but the most common link between the increases that occur in certain communities around NFL stadiums and not in other unlinked communities is the gathering of the people.  
 

It is exactly like the argument about Sturgis Rally in South Dakota - numbers spiked all over the northern mid-west with an obvious root cause, but without genetic markers and testing it is only a link - not a causal relationship.

 

It makes complete sense and does not mean the league was wrong - it shows how easy it is to spread and how bringing in 5 - 10,000 people to watch the game has impacts outside of the stadium.  It is not necessarily proven the spread even occurred at the game - it was just focused with that event as the epicenter.

 

The increase could be people coming into the area and eating out, more people getting gas and shopping at the local “Wegman’s” or other store, it could be the increased gathering of local staff to handle the flow of people, there are many aspects that could lead to the increase, but the big thing that changed week to week was the fans gathering even in reduced numbers and those fans and staff coming in contact with multitudes of others around the game.  That pressure was not there when there were 0 fans and limited staff as was shown during the study.

Edited April 7, 2021 by Rochesterfan

[Hapless Bills Fan]

21 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

"The study does not prove a causal link between fan attendance and Covid-19 cases, but suggests that there may be a relationship between the two."

 

Solid science there.  There's numerous other factors that could've lead to a spike in cases.

 

You know, this really should be a football relevant topic that we can have a discussion about, but if this is the reaction, I guess the answer is still "no".

 

Science seldom proves anything.  Scientists are a cautious bunch.  We're the ones who get asked "what color is this house painted?" and say "the two sides I can see appear to be blue".  So "suggesting a causal link" but not proving it, is about the best we can do, but it should at least be given some attention and not dismissed out of hand.

 

If you look at the actual article, they tried pretty hard to account for those other causes

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3805754

 

 

[Freddie's Dead]

The Lancet has zero credibility after they had to fully retract a Covid article which trashed HCQ as a treatment from a year ago.  Not buying anything The Lancet is selling.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

10 minutes ago, Freddie's Dead said:

The Lancet has zero credibility after they had to fully retract a Covid article which trashed HCQ as a treatment from a year ago.  Not buying anything The Lancet is selling.

 

Now let me understand this. 

You're talking about this, I presume:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/lancet-retracts-major-covid-19-paper-that-raised-safety-concerns-about-malaria-drugs/ar-BB152ZkP

 

The paper was withdrawn, not because the conclusions were wrong, but because the authors became unable to independently verify the data, which was sourced by a company called 'Surgisphere':

Quote

As scrutiny grew, the authors on the paper not affiliated with Surgisphere called for an independent audit. In their statement Thursday, they said that Surgisphere was not cooperating with the independent reviewers and would not provide the data.

"As such, our reviewers were not able to conduct an independent and private peer review and therefore notified us of their withdrawal from the peer-review process," the researchers wrote.

 

Therefore, the authors did the embarrassing but scientifically ethical thing, and asked the Lancet to withdraw the paper.

The Lancet complied.

 

Yet somehow, The Lancet and the authors taking responsibility and behaving ethically, gives them "zero credibility" to you?  Seems bizarre, but You Do You.

 

Gentle reminder: try to keep this focused narrowly on football and this study, the Lancet credibility question is relevant because they are the journal publishing the study.

 

 

 

 

[CaptnCoke11]

Just keep making up ***** as they go

[Big Turk]

13 minutes ago, Freddie's Dead said:

The Lancet has zero credibility after they had to fully retract a Covid article which trashed HCQ as a treatment from a year ago.  Not buying anything The Lancet is selling.

 

HCQ was proven to be almost wholly ineffective by numerous studies. Dexamethesone and blood thinners on the other hand proved to be quite useful.

Edited April 7, 2021 by Big Turk

[Rico]

13 minutes ago, Freddie's Dead said:

The Lancet has zero credibility after they had to fully retract a Covid article which trashed HCQ as a treatment from a year ago.  Not buying anything The Lancet is selling.

Never heard of the Lancet, but if it’s in the NYT, it has to be true.

[Freddie's Dead]

3 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

Yet somehow, The Lancet and the authors taking responsibility and behaving ethically, gives them "zero credibility" to you?  Seems bizarre, but You Do You.

 

I'm a do Me.  The Lancet has editorial responsibility to thoroughly review and vet every paper they publish.  They don't.  With that, I'm done.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Yeah, this thread is going to be productive of topical, constructive football-related discussion.

I'm borrowing @Chandler#81's gift for predicting these things.

 

4 minutes ago, Freddie's Dead said:

I'm a do Me.  The Lancet has editorial responsibility to thoroughly review and vet every paper they publish.  They don't.  With that, I'm done.

 

As someone who has participated in peer-reviewing papers for scientific journals, the thorough review process does not involve visiting the author's labs and reviewing all of their primary data.  That's way above any reasonable expectation for a journal.  During review, you take the data at face value, and ensure that the data support the conclusions and that references are cited appropriately and correctly. 

 

It's the author's responsibility to ensure the integrity of their own data - it's always been that way, and when they could not, the authors acted correctly in withdrawing the paper.

 

The Lancet was, and remains, one of the premier journals in the medical field.

 

6 minutes ago, Rico said:

Never heard of the Lancet, but if it’s in the NYT, it has to be true.

 

Don't have to believe NYT, link to Lancet paper included above.

[Paup 1995MVP]

Alabama is planning on full capacity at Bryant-Denny Stadium this coming season.  As is probably the rest of the SEC and Sun Belt Conferences teams.  

 

Maybe science is different down South.  LOL

[The Jokeman]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

The Lancet.  LOL!

hey I use lancets and they're no laughing matter. 

[SirAndrew]

I’ll just sit back and listen to all the TBD science experts on this one🍿 

[DrDawkinstein]

3 minutes ago, Paup 1995MVP said:

Alabama is planning on full capacity at Bryant-Denny Stadium this coming season.  As is probably the rest of the SEC and Sun Belt Conferences teams.  

 

Maybe science is different down South.  LOL

 

Ha! Well... zero amount of science when into those decisions. That was all money and politics.

[Prospector]

4 minutes ago, Paup 1995MVP said:

Alabama is planning on full capacity at Bryant-Denny Stadium this coming season.  As is probably the rest of the SEC and Sun Belt Conferences teams.  

 

Maybe science is different down South.  LOL

maybe just a little less irrational hysteria down there

[In Summary]

I didn't see any numbers in the article and in my opinion, the cautions will be notably outdated by September 2021.  Neither the paper, nor the editorial positions by Alex Piquero and the others seemed to suggest that having fans in attendance was reckless.

[Prospector]

Just wondering when this thread should be moved or closed... I can see some people getting into trouble pretty fast (myself included)

[Rock'em Sock'em]

90% of statistics are completely made up.  Did the NYT study isolate attendees vs. non-attendees residing in the same city?  Do we even know whether attending the game outdoors actually increases or decreases your risk compared to how you would watch the game otherwise for those particular fans that attended? While I know that staying home in isolation is going to keep you healthy, I'm always skeptical about such studies.

 

Rank the following in terms of riskiness.  I would say after #1, nobody really knows.

1. Watch the game home alone, or don't watch the game.

2. Watch the game outdoors with 20,000 other fans.

3. Watch the game at a crowded indoor bar.

4. Watch the game at home with family and friends.

[Big Turk]

5 minutes ago, Rock'em Sock'em said:

90% of statistics are completely made up.  Did the NYT study isolate attendees vs. non-attendees residing in the same city?  Do we even know whether attending the game outdoors actually increases or decreases your risk compared to how you would watch the game otherwise for those particular fans that attended? While I know that staying home in isolation is going to keep you healthy, I'm always skeptical about such studies.

 

Rank the following in terms of riskiness.  I would say after #1, nobody really knows.

1. Watch the game home alone, or don't watch the game.

2. Watch the game outdoors with 20,000 other fans.

3. Watch the game at a crowded indoor bar.

4. Watch the game at home with family and friends.

 

They do know that he likelihood is much higher in crowded indoor venues and also with being among friends and family at home.  Outdoors is still by far the least risk other than completely isolating.

[MPL]

4 minutes ago, Rock'em Sock'em said:

90% of statistics are completely made up.  Did the NYT study isolate attendees vs. non-attendees residing in the same city?  Do we even know whether attending the game outdoors actually increases or decreases your risk compared to how you would watch the game otherwise for those particular fans that attended? While I know that staying home in isolation is going to keep you healthy, I'm always skeptical about such studies.

 

Rank the following in terms of riskiness.  I would say after #1, nobody really knows.

1. Watch the game home alone, or don't watch the game.

2. Watch the game outdoors with 20,000 other fans.

3. Watch the game at a crowded indoor bar.

4. Watch the game at home with family and friends.

Just out of curiosity... does your statistic that 90% of statistics are completely made up fall into the completely made up category? Based on that statistic, it seems there's a 90% chance that that statistic is made up. 

1 hour ago, Big Turk said:

Would that still be the case if fans are now fully vaccinated?  Perhaps the answer is to let only allow people who have been fully vaccinated to attend then.

More importantly, would Josh Allen be allowed to attend should he decide to not get vaccinated? 😂

[Prospector]

1 minute ago, MPL said:

Just out of curiosity... does your statistic that 90% of statistics are completely made up fall into the completely made up category? Based on that statistic, it seems there's a 90% chance that that statistic is made up. 

nothing gets by you... nice job Mcgyver! you figured out his jest... yeesh

[Rochesterfan]

3 minutes ago, Rock'em Sock'em said:

90% of statistics are completely made up.  Did the NYT study isolate attendees vs. non-attendees residing in the same city?  Do we even know whether attending the game outdoors actually increases or decreases your risk compared to how you would watch the game otherwise for those particular fans that attended? While I know that staying home in isolation is going to keep you healthy, I'm always skeptical about such studies.

 

Rank the following in terms of riskiness.  I would say after #1, nobody really knows.

1. Watch the game home alone, or don't watch the game.

2. Watch the game outdoors with 20,000 other fans.

3. Watch the game at a crowded indoor bar.

4. Watch the game at home with family and friends.

 

It was not a NYT study.  It was a study lead out of Alabama and published in the Lancet.  The NYT is just linking to the Medical Journal.

 

The study did not appear to look at attendees versus non-attendees and made no judgement to that fact.  What it stated was that the communities around the NFL stadiums saw spikes that did not correlate to the rest of the areas  and those spikes appeared 2-3 weeks after each game with >5000 fans.  

 

The study as far as I saw did not state that the game itself was the cause of the spread - only that it is note worthy that these increases occurred consistently after more than 5000 fans gathered at games.  It was not seen in communities after games in which fans were not present.  

 

The study believes (as you would expect with this illness) that the gathering of the large number of people whether in the stadium or in the travel and activities surrounding the game - dinner, bars, tailgating, waiting in line, dealing with security, grocery shopping the night before, etc. all could lead to spread with the game as the epicenter - the force bringing the people together - I did not see the original author trying to state the game was a bad thing - just that the data suggests an increase in cases surrounding the game.

 

It is no different than the huge spikes seen after Thanksgiving and Christmas because more people travelled and got together.  The different risk factors are irrelevant - they fact that NFL games and fans may have lead to a spike should not be a surprise.  

[Long Suffering Fan]

4 minutes ago, BillsShredder83 said:

ughhhhhhhhhh i hateeeeeee this damn virus

 

When I first read this I thought it was your suffering as you succumbed to the virus.  Like you were being funny about how you were going to live your life and then then tacked that on on the end.

 

That's ridiculous, he wouldn't type that out, he would just say it....

...perhaps he was dictating.

 

Too much Monty Python...

[TBBills]

People don't really care anymore... They just want to do whatever they want.

[RiotAct]

40 minutes ago, MPL said:

More importantly, would Josh Allen be allowed to attend should he decide to not get vaccinated? 

🤯🤯🤯

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, Paup 1995MVP said:

Alabama is planning on full capacity at Bryant-Denny Stadium this coming season.  As is probably the rest of the SEC and Sun Belt Conferences teams.  

 

Maybe science is different down South.  LOL

 

The NFL is planning full capacity too

 

I'm pretty sure science is the same down South.

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, Prospector said:

Just wondering when this thread should be moved or closed... I can see some people getting into trouble pretty fast (myself included)

 

Believe me, I'm wondering the same thing

[Jerome007]

Texas Rangers had a full crowd two days ago. If in 2-3 weeks, there's no spike in cases linked to the attendees, or if there is, we can learn from it. UFC will hold events with full crowds too

 

So by the time NFL season starts, we should have a much better idea.

 

Who can trust fear mongering media these days unless your mind is already made up that the way we humans lived from day 1 to March 2020 is never possible again?

 

At least Texas is doing real "testing" of crowds. We'll see soon enough. I mean, if it's bad it'll be all over the news so we have to keep an eye on what goes there as if it's all well and dandy, media will be silent. Either way, it will be telling.

 

Edited April 7, 2021 by Jerome007

[HOUSE]

1 hour ago, Prospector said:

Just wondering when this thread should be moved or closed... I can see some people getting into trouble pretty fast (myself included)

 

We need a board appointed attorney...somebody free

[nucci]

12 minutes ago, Jerome007 said:

Texas Rangers had a full crowd two days ago. If in 2-3 weeks, there's no spike in cases linked to the attendees, will most of you still fear this as the medieval plague? UFC will hold events with full crowds too

 

So by the time NFL season starts, we should have a much better idea.

 

Who can trust fear mongering media these days unless your mind is already made up that the way we humans lived from day 1 to March 2020 is never possible again?

 

At least Texas is doing real "testing" of crowds. We'll see soon enough. I mean, if it's bad it'll be all over the news so we have to keep an eye on what goes there as if it's all well and dandy, media will be silent. Either way, it will be telling.

 

I listen to Drs and Nurses. I have family in the medical field

[appoo]

Heres the thing, by Sept everyone in America will have had an opportunity to get the vaccine, and if they haven't we'd know about it.

 

By that point, if you're not protected, that's on you.

 

What the Rangers are doing NOW is crazy, but if they waited till Sept? No problems

[Prospector]

2 minutes ago, nucci said:

I listen to Drs and Nurses. I have family in the medical field

I would think a lot of board members do. My wife is in the field.. and most of the doctors and specialists she works with also say things are way too restrictive.

Just now, appoo said:

Heres the thing, by Sept everyone in America will have had an opportunity to get the vaccine, and if they haven't we'd know about it.

 

By that point, if you're not protected, that's on you.

 

What the Rangers are doing NOW is crazy, but if they waited till Sept? No problems

can't tell if the last sentence was serious or sarcasm

[HOUSE]

14 minutes ago, nucci said:

I listen to Drs and Nurses. I have family in the medical field

 

And some of those people are crazy, I know

 

 

Edited April 7, 2021 by HOUSE

[appoo]

7 minutes ago, Prospector said:

I would think a lot of board members do. My wife is in the field.. and most of the doctors and specialists she works with also say things are way too restrictive.

can't tell if the last sentence was serious or sarcasm

 

I think what the Rangers are allowing is batcrap crazy and wildly irresponsible. The vaccine hasn't remotely gotten enough chance to get to enough people. 

 

This is all about risk to the community. Without accesible vaccine, big gathering are a huge, unneccesary, risk.

 

With vaccine coverage, the risk to the community is mostly gone. If I'm vaccinated, and my family and loved ones are vaccinated. What do I care if you are or aren't vaccinated? Then it really is down to personal choice. You're not a risk to me and mine whether or not you have COVID.

 

In Sept/October, I would hope all sports in the US have full crowds.