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

[Governor]

48 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

More people get together = more cases of illness. Seems like common sense that no one would question normally....

 

Many other studies of airborne sicknesses have been done over the last 200 years....

 

I hope all stadiums allow vaccinated fans back in 2021. It just makes sense and everyone will have a great time.

From the looks of it, some concerts (arenas, stadiums, amphitheaters) will be happening in the month of August so the NFL will have that data and the used procedures to look at before the season starts. Vaccinated folks will get the go-ahead and tickets should be easier to get since 30 percent of fans won’t be able to attend.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

12 minutes ago, The Governor said:

From the looks of it, some concerts (arenas, stadiums, amphitheaters) will be happening in the month of August so the NFL will have that data and the used procedures to look at before the season starts. Vaccinated folks will get the go-ahead and tickets should be easier to get since 30 percent of fans won’t be able to attend.

 

Germany did a big study of a simulated concert last summer....this is the only report I could find of the results (it omitted certain precautions, like I believe the participants were all tested before the study).  They used contact tracers to determine where people were getting too close for too long (entrances and exits) and fluorescent hand sanitizer.

The take-home seemed to be that if there was good ventilation (outdoors, *cough*) and protocols were followed, the "infection risk" (unclear how they defined that) could be lowered 70x.

 

I think a take-home of the Lancet study is, as they point out, if a spike attributed to the game occurred, they don't know where - and it may not have been in the stadium at all.

[appoo]

4 hours ago, The Governor said:

Yeah, you’ll need proof of vaccination or a negative test to enter a game next season and I’m just fine with that.

Since we're down this rathole, I'm not sure this is at all necessary. I think the only business that would need a vaccination are flights - domestic or international, and that's because you don't know where people are coming from before they get on a plane, and you're messing around with variants from around the world. We don't need to ADD to the at risk population.

 

What's the purpose of requiring vaccination proof to get into a stadium? Who are we protecting? People who refuse to get a vaccine? 

 

My leading identifier is that of empathy. I believe empathy to be the most powerful force on Earth.  I don't have empathy for those who choose not to get vaccinated. I hold no ill will towards them as they have free will on whether or not to get vaccinated, but I don't have empathy for them if they refuse to get vaccinated, and then get sick. After the year we as a society, and me personally, have been through, I just can't.  If you want to walk into a stadium unvaccinated, be it on your own head.

 

Btw, this is also why I'm fully supportive of Josh Allen. He doesn't want to get a vaccine, and at this point that's not something that will harm society, The man followed all COVID protocols and masked etc, that's all we can ask of him. Let him make his own choice based on his own beliefs.  But at the same time that choice shouldn't inform decisions on community activities.

Edited April 8, 2021 by appoo

[Governor]

12 minutes ago, appoo said:

Since we're down this rathole, I'm not sure this is at all necessary. I think the only business that would need a vaccination are flights - domestic or international, and that's because you don't know where people are coming from before they get on a plane, and you're messing around with variants from around the world. We don't need to ADD to the at risk population.

 

What's the purpose of requiring vaccination proof to get into a stadium? Who are we protecting? People who refuse to get a vaccine? 

 

My leading identifier is that of empathy. I believe empathy to be the most powerful force on Earth.  I don't have empathy for those who choose not to get vaccinated. I hold no ill will towards them as they have free will on whether or not to get vaccinated, but I don't have empathy for them if they refuse to get vaccinated, and then get sick. After the year we as a society, and me personally, have been through, I just can't.  If you want to walk into a stadium unvaccinated, be it on your own head.

 

Btw, this is also why I'm fully supportive of Josh Allen. He doesn't want to get a vaccine, and at this point that's not something that will harm society, The man followed all COVID protocols and masked etc, that's all we can ask of him. Let him make his own choice based on his own beliefs.  But at the same time that choice shouldn't inform decisions on community activities.

That very well may be the landscape by September. I guess it depends on how quickly children get vaccinated. Restrictions will probably change as the season progresses.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

8 minutes ago, appoo said:

What's the purpose of requiring vaccination proof to get into a stadium? Who are we protecting? People who refuse to get a vaccine?

 

Well, if you have a vaccine that in real life use is 90% effective in preventing disease, that means 10% of those vaccinated still get infected over a period of time

If you have a vaccine that in real life use is 70% effective, that means 30% still get infected over a period of time.

 

Currently children under 16 can't be vaccinated at all.  Some of them still get seriously ill, especially if they have a preexisting condition such as a heart disease or diabetes.

 

So some of the people we're trying to protect are vaccinated (or ineligible to vaccinate) individuals.  Perhaps individuals who would not attend a crowded gathering but who come in contact with an unvaccinated person who did, and got ill.

 

Perhaps your empathy should do a little flex?  Just a leeetle one?

 

 

 

 

[appoo]

4 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Well, if you have a vaccine that in real life use is 90% effective in preventing disease, that means 10% of those vaccinated still get infected over a period of time

If you have a vaccine that in real life use is 70% effective, that means 30% still get infected over a period of time.

 

Currently children under 16 can't be vaccinated at all.  Some of them still get seriously ill, especially if they have a preexisting condition such as a heart disease or diabetes.

 

So some of the people we're trying to protect are vaccinated (or ineligible to vaccinate) individuals.  Perhaps individuals who would not attend a crowded gathering but who come in contact with an unvaccinated person who did, and got ill.

 

Perhaps your empathy should do a little flex?  Just a leeetle one?

 

 

 

 

That's a fair point with regards to the children. If that doesn't become available till late summer or something, you can't really say they've had access, and it would be fair to  request either a vaccine or test if that were the case

 

With regards to efficacy, all 3 of the vaccines are 100% effective  in preventing even hospitalization, much less death - and I should note that I'm perfectly ok with organizations asking people to mask when using their facilities.

 

As for my empathy comment, that was specifically targeted to those people who have access to the vaccine, and refuse to take it.

 

I certainly have a ton of empathy for those who can not access a vaccine, and would do my best to protect them. That's why even though I'll be vaccinated by mid April, I plan on masking and social distancing in public through the rest of the year.

[Doc Brown]

9 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

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. 

I understand all that but I just found the study funny as in they put in all that time to put common sense to paper.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

5 minutes ago, appoo said:

With regards to efficacy, all 3 of the vaccines are 100% effective  in preventing even hospitalization, much less death

 

Nothing is 100% in real life use.  There are data up in some real life studies of 1.2 million people up in the Covid info thread. 

Spoiler: it's less than 100%

[Boxcar]

10 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

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

 

 

Ignoring the science, those people chose to go to those games and accepted the risks. Not sure what the big deal is. Of course there will be more cases if you're in a football stadium, not locked inside.

 

1 hour ago, appoo said:

That's a fair point with regards to the children. If that doesn't become available till late summer or something, you can't really say they've had access, and it would be fair to  request either a vaccine or test if that were the case

 

With regards to efficacy, all 3 of the vaccines are 100% effective  in preventing even hospitalization, much less death - and I should note that I'm perfectly ok with organizations asking people to mask when using their facilities.

 

As for my empathy comment, that was specifically targeted to those people who have access to the vaccine, and refuse to take it.

 

I certainly have a ton of empathy for those who can not access a vaccine, and would do my best to protect them. That's why even though I'll be vaccinated by mid April, I plan on masking and social distancing in public through the rest of the year.

What are the effects 2 years from now?

[Rochesterfan]

6 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

I understand all that but I just found the study funny as in they put in all that time to put common sense to paper.

 

I agree, but even in this thread the “common sense” is not believed - so they wanted to review the data to see the impact and verify if what makes sense occurred or not.  They did it with available data from the states/CDC and without trying to judge the overall place of infection - just the root cause.  It should be nearly non-controversial, but yet people laud it as a NYT hit piece or blast the Lancet as a bad source - when neither was involved - they are just the conveyance of the info.

 

For those of us in the medical field - I find this type of study and data fascinating and think the tragedy of this pandemic can lead to whole new understandings based upon what we have learned.  The fact that we have gone an entire flu season with almost no flu (or colds or RSV) at all confirms older theory’s about prevention.

Edited April 8, 2021 by Rochesterfan

[Rochesterfan]

5 hours ago, Boxcar said:

Ignoring the science, those people chose to go to those games and accepted the risks. Not sure what the big deal is. Of course there will be more cases if you're in a football stadium, not locked inside.

 

What are the effects 2 years from now?

 

The “big deal” is that the increase infection rate was not necessarily the people that choose to go to the game and accept the risk.  The increased rate was in the surrounding community.  The study does not make a conclusion that people at the game necessarily spread the infection amongst themselves.  The conclusion was the gatherings lead to more people in the area: potential waiters/bar workers, grocery store clerks, security, testing personnel, hotel workers, Uber drivers, food delivery (Grub Hub), parking attendants, concession workers and vendors, etc. - all were part of the contact tracing and the gathering of >5000 fans saw this group of people infected more frequently than when no fans were present.

 

The people at the game chose to go and accepted the risk - the others impacted were just doing their job, but their job put them in higher contact with people that chose to go and did it without their choice or acceptance.  They did it because they lived paycheck to paycheck and had to go to work.

 

If the entire increase had just been confined to those that chose to go - then you are correct, but the issue is the collateral people impacted and then the secondary and tertiary people infected by them.

 

The study is dumb because the findings were fairly easy to know before hand as any large gathering be it riots, political gatherings, or routine things like birthday, weddings, and funerals- all showed increase spread, but it needed to be done to confirm the thoughts and see - could large outdoor gatherings of fans really not lead to increased community spread.

[FireChans]

2 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

The “big deal” is that the increase infection rate was not necessarily the people that choose to go to the game and accept the risk.  The increased rate was in the surrounding community.  The study does not make a conclusion that people at the game necessarily spread the infection amongst themselves.  The conclusion was the gatherings lead to more people in the area: potential waiters/bar workers, grocery store clerks, security, testing personnel, hotel workers, Uber drivers, food delivery (Grub Hub), parking attendants, concession workers and vendors, etc. - all were part of the contact tracing and the gathering of >5000 fans saw this group of people infected more frequently than when no fans were present.

 

The people at the game chose to go and accepted the risk - the others impacted were just doing their job, but their job put them in higher contact with people that chose to go and did it without their choice or acceptance.  They did it because they lived paycheck to paycheck and had to go to work.

 

If the entire increase had just been confined to those that chose to go - then you are correct, but the issue is the collateral people impacted and then the secondary and tertiary people infected by them.

 

The study is dumb because the findings were fairly easy to know before hand as any large gathering be it riots, political gatherings, or routine things like birthday, weddings, and funerals- all showed increase spread, but it needed to be done to confirm the thoughts and see - could large outdoor gatherings of fans really not lead to increased community spread.

Did the people infected in the community all practice strict hand hygiene, mask wearing and social distancing?

[Rochesterfan]

Just now, FireChans said:

Did the people infected in the community all practice strict hand hygiene, mask wearing and social distancing?

 They don’t make that judgement - which is the same reason they do not state the game itself was the reason for the spread.  The game was just the epicenter to bring large groups together.  They specifically state the spread could be due to factors outside the game, but the large gathering of people changed something in the community- because there was an increase not seen following games with no fans or weeks with no games played.

 

That suggests since the NFL is a weekly league it was not the actual game, but a function of the gathering.  The study tried to put no cause to the increase.  They also tried to look at certain games with fans that saw no increase and find out what was different, but no rules stuck out - so they could not conclude that team A was better than team B - just that in some cases no major increase was seen.

[FireChans]

5 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 They don’t make that judgement - which is the same reason they do not state the game itself was the reason for the spread.  The game was just the epicenter to bring large groups together.  They specifically state the spread could be due to factors outside the game, but the large gathering of people changed something in the community- because there was an increase not seen following games with no fans or weeks with no games played.

 

That suggests since the NFL is a weekly league it was not the actual game, but a function of the gathering.  The study tried to put no cause to the increase.  They also tried to look at certain games with fans that saw no increase and find out what was different, but no rules stuck out - so they could not conclude that team A was better than team B - just that in some cases no major increase was seen.

So then it’s a useless report.

 

Large gatherings may affect COVID numbers but we’re not sure. Is this an article published in April 2020? Did the pandemic just start?

[GimmeSomeProcess]

BS, I was at the colts game and no way in hell did that contribute to large spikes. It was well planned and safe.

[Rochesterfan]

14 minutes ago, FireChans said:

So then it’s a useless report.

 

Large gatherings may affect COVID numbers but we’re not sure. Is this an article published in April 2020? Did the pandemic just start?

 

It was not a report - it was a retroactive study and yes that is the conclusion that large gatherings caused increased COVID numbers in the community.  The epicenter was looking at NFL games with fans versus without fans and the differences in community spread.
 

Yet people argue still now that it was not an issue.  
 

The research team also tried to find if certain protocols were better and limited spread as some games did not show the same increases, but there were not enough common denominators between limited spread and larger spread to say that.  The goal was to determine did it have an impact as you would expect it to - even with the protocols in place and where certain protocols more or less effective so in the future you know what might work.  That data was inconclusive because without DNA sequencing info - they could not state the spread occurred at the game or in the surrounding community before or after the game due to behaviors (or just dumb luck).

 

In the end - yes it is not real useful because it was just a retroactive data study based upon local, state, and CDC numbers within communities.  No one ever said it was more.

[nucci]

14 hours 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.

 

I agree some things were a bit restrictive but i also believe a lot of it was and is necessary

[Rochesterfan]

53 minutes ago, FireChans said:

So then it’s a useless report.

 

Large gatherings may affect COVID numbers but we’re not sure. Is this an article published in April 2020? Did the pandemic just start?

 

The reason it was not useless is the 2 comments directly after yours - NYT fearporn for a study they were not involved in and did not print and claims there was no spike.  The Bills playoff game was safe and could not have lead to a spike.  
 

Those two comments are the exact reason it was done and why they did not draw specific conclusions.  The games were done in a safe effective manner, but the community and surrounding areas were impacted.

[Gordio]

13 hours ago, Ethan in Portland said:

The games were just as good with no fans.  

 

 

No they weren't.  That is not even debatable.  

[Gordio]

9 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Good job keeping the focus towards the topic of football stadiums. 

 

There are a couple tech. issues with this generally correct assessment -

1) there's a lot of overlap between vaccinated people, and people who have previous covid infection (infected people are still recommended to be vaccinated - so can't just add the two numbers.)

2) this is still under investigation, but it's known that the Sars-Cov2 virus actively evades the immune response (it's a survival tool for many viruses, this one just seems better than many at FSU).  So there's an emerging believe that vaccinated immunity, which bypasses the immune suppression and evasion mechanisms of a natural infection, may actually produce stronger immunity.

3) the estimate of 75% of the population to achieve herd immunity was based upon the R0 of the original dominant Sars-Cov2 strain.  The more infectious variants may require a higher level. 

 

My point is that public health departments and epidemiologists may do the math a little bit differently than you are, and if the vaccination rate lags down at 60% or so, they may be running models and saying "ah yeah, I see reasons not to allow the stadia here to fill up to capacity"

 

Hopefully it will be a moot point.

 

 

 

This the problem with this whole situation though, the higher powers keep changing the goal posts and it seems like they are making stuff up as they go along just to prolong this thing and keep control.  I am going to leave it at that as I don't want to get suspended again.  I will say, the NFL is a very powerful force too, and I doubt Goodell and the boys are willing to swallow $3 billion dollars in loss revenue for a second straight year by not allowing fans in especially since most of the college stadiums in the south are going to be full go come Labor Day.  

[Man with No Name]

what are the numbers? what is a "spike" 

[Malazan]

20 minutes ago, Man with No Name said:

what are the numbers? what is a "spike" 

 

https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=327083003119119021020026096024030107058015032006043044006026050102016000033029118015119042029028000073030064075080099119090119033108100091039033098098122121071099073077013071083004092095089002027021002106031083075105089006016086126001080005017122097125113121097095030081005120023029065071000&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE

[Boxcar]

1 hour ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

The “big deal” is that the increase infection rate was not necessarily the people that choose to go to the game and accept the risk.  The increased rate was in the surrounding community.  The study does not make a conclusion that people at the game necessarily spread the infection amongst themselves.  The conclusion was the gatherings lead to more people in the area: potential waiters/bar workers, grocery store clerks, security, testing personnel, hotel workers, Uber drivers, food delivery (Grub Hub), parking attendants, concession workers and vendors, etc. - all were part of the contact tracing and the gathering of >5000 fans saw this group of people infected more frequently than when no fans were present.

 

The people at the game chose to go and accepted the risk - the others impacted were just doing their job, but their job put them in higher contact with people that chose to go and did it without their choice or acceptance.  They did it because they lived paycheck to paycheck and had to go to work.

 

If the entire increase had just been confined to those that chose to go - then you are correct, but the issue is the collateral people impacted and then the secondary and tertiary people infected by them.

 

The study is dumb because the findings were fairly easy to know before hand as any large gathering be it riots, political gatherings, or routine things like birthday, weddings, and funerals- all showed increase spread, but it needed to be done to confirm the thoughts and see - could large outdoor gatherings of fans really not lead to increased community spread.

 

Bit misleading. I'd put all my chips on spread happening in the concourse, rest rooms, in line for food. How much spread there was, not sure. How many people died because of it, not sure. It's a scare tactic to keep people in line. For some reason, they really find the journey towards normalcy appalling.

[Rochesterfan]

4 minutes ago, Boxcar said:

 

Bit misleading. I'd put all my chips on spread happening in the concourse, rest rooms, in line for food. How much spread there was, not sure. How many people died because of it, not sure. It's a scare tactic to keep people in line. For some reason, they really find the journey towards normalcy appalling.

 

The issue is that the study purposefully says none of that.  It goes so far as to say they can not even conclude that the spread occurred within the stadium and did not rule out the pre and post game activities.  They also specifically call out that the mortality rate although increased is very difficult to pin to specific dates due to the fact that those rates are not consistent to infection date.  Some increases in mortality are seen at 3-4 weeks and other times it is 5-6 weeks or more.

 

I do not read it as a scare tactic or to try and get people in line.  The researchers were looking into the gatherings and looking for trends and the trends were fairly limited and obvious.  You have large groups coming together - you saw more spread.

 
 

 

[Just in Atlanta]

From the source study:

"... games that had over 20,000 fans in attendance generated significantly greater spikes in the case count/rate for the county in which games took place within the 21-day window ... In this latter scenario, in counties where teams had 20,000 fans in attendance, there was 2.23 times the rate of spikes in COVID-19 compared to all other teams."

 

We've also seen studies, including in NY, that concluded that 15k or so fans socially distanced in outdoor stadiums were safe. The problem is, as many have pointed out, what comes before and next - whether it's 5k or 25k.

One has to be pretty dense not to expect a spike in a state like Florida after a Super Bowl in which the home team won.

 

I think the NFL did an amazing job last season - protecting players and fans and allowing teams to decide. 

 

On a bigger note, we'll have more emergencies, scares and pandemics likely in our increasingly inter-connected (globalized) world. At some point, we have to live our lives. 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, Gordio said:

No they weren't.  That is not even debatable.  

 

Agree.

👀

Wait, what just happened?

[Gordio]

55 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Agree.

👀

Wait, what just happened?

 

 

Haha, the world is coming to an end as we know it!

[Governor]

Is there a breakdown as to which games were the worst and where?

 

I can’t really take any Florida numbers seriously since they’ve been lying/hiding their cases the entire time. They also decreased their testing throughout the year.

[Rock'em Sock'em]

18 hours 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?

My statistic is one of the 90% for sure.

[transient]

14 hours ago, NoSaint said:

also the ever true reality that we are guests in SDS’s house and were never guaranteed any semblance of perfect consistency - so no need to argue with your take here.
 

its a pretty reasonable bend, if a bend at all, and no ones forcing anyone into the thread.

 

not to get too far off the topic but I think it’s a good occasional reminder to let some of the entitlement go and just enjoy this for what it is and sidestep what you don’t like.

If I let go of my sense of entitlement all I'll have is my seething anger towards anyone who doesn't share my opinion... CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!!

[CincyBillsFan]

The best thing for society is to return to normal ASAP.  That was the position of Dr. Henderson the former CDC head and the man credited with eradicating small pox. His greatest fear was the collateral damage unleashed by over zealously shutting down society and altering normal human behavior through social distancing & community mask wearing.

 

The fact is that a combination of those naturally infected and those who will have received the vaccine by September 1 is almost certain to lead to effective herd immunity.

 

For this reason we should have full stadiums for the NFL 2021 season. 

 

 

[78thealltimegreat]

23 hours ago, JÂy RÛßeÒ said:

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

 

 

It’s the New York Times consider the source 

3 hours ago, The Governor said:

Is there a breakdown as to which games were the worst and where?

 

I can’t really take any Florida numbers seriously since they’ve been lying/hiding their cases the entire time. They also decreased their testing throughout the year.

And New York hasn’t? 

[Reed83HOF]

21 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

The NFL is planning full capacity too

 

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

 

I will not make fun of southerners

 

I will not make fun of southerners

 

I will not make....

[CincyBillsFan]

I found this to be useful and provide reason for optimism.  It tracks daily vaccinations not only in the USA but in each state.

 

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/01/28/960901166/how-is-the-covid-19-vaccination-campaign-going-in-your-state

 

They set the herd immunity threshold at between 70% - 85% vaccinated.  There is a nice graph that has the dates when we reach these milestones - 70% in early August and 85% is by mid September.  For the record this seems like they set the bar to high as they don't include those naturally infected. 

 

Bottom line though is that the stadiums should be full and rocking for opening week in 2021.

 

 

[CincyBillsFan]

5 minutes ago, 78thealltimegreat said:

I’m open to trading Josh to a deep red state like Louisiana and the Saints who are probably more in line with his values anyway 

I'm thinking Miami would be a better fit.  Florida has totally reopened and the number of cases have plummeted from their high in January.

 

 

[78thealltimegreat]

Just now, CincyBillsFan said:

I'm thinking Miami would be a better fit.  Florida has totally reopened and the number of cases have plummeted from their high in January.

 

 

A Bills Dolphins trade hmm we get a bunch of number ones and Tua ...  the Fins get the best QB they’ve had since Dan Marino I like it! 

[SDS]

8 minutes ago, CincyBillsFan said:

I'm thinking Miami would be a better fit.  Florida has totally reopened and the number of cases have plummeted from their high in January.

 

 

Florida’s seven day average has been increasing since March 17 and is still twice as high as it was last October.

[RiotAct]

16 minutes ago, 78thealltimegreat said:

I’m open to trading Josh to a deep red state like Louisiana and the Saints who are probably more in line with his values anyway 

it’s pretty much a slam dunk at this point...

[Billzgobowlin]

16 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I'm not sure that's a great analogy. 

 

There are specific behaviors that are pretty well established to make driving your car more risky - driving while under the influence, driving while excessively fatigued, excessive speed for the road conditions, and so forth.  You can do a lot of driving outside a bubble without getting into the riskier behaviors.

 

For an airborne contagious disease, there are pretty well-established risk factors.   Indoors > Outdoors, duration of event, size of gathering with larger > smaller.  

 

You can do a lot of living outside a bubble without getting into the riskier aspects in the face of an airborne contagious disease, just as you can do a lot of driving.

 

I think it's an interesting study that they could identify a spike in the communities.  Conclusive, no.

 

The authors acknowledge a valid point that they can't tell it was the game per se or behaviors around the game (gathering pre-game for food and drinks etc).  If good enough quality contact tracing were available, I think it would be interesting to compare infection rates in Buffalo in the people who attended large outdoor "watch events" that were set up by various restaurant districts vs. the people who went to the game, and were required to be tested beforehand and masked. 

 

My guess would be that the pre-game testing made a big difference to safety, but I don't know.  The dog thing intrigues me  - that dogs can be trained to detect covid-19.  It would be pretty cool if people could be screened on entry by something super-quick like dogs and those "flagged" given a backup rapid test.

 

I'd like to hope it will all be a moot point by September because enough people will be vaccinated to cut transmission rates way down, but who knows?

I think it's a perfect analogy because as you don't know who is impaired while driving around you, you don't know who is sick.  You have to live your life even when risks are around you.  How much you want to limit your risks is how little you want to live your life.  I prefer to not take crazy risks but I also understand you can not fully be kept away from harm if you walk outside your home

[78thealltimegreat]

12 minutes ago, SDS said:

Florida’s seven day average has been increasing since March 17 and is still twice as high as it was last October.

Awesome Miami will give us a bunch of ones for Josh it will be so great 

12 minutes ago, RiotAct said:

it’s pretty much a slam dunk at this point...

I agree Saints give Buffalo 3 number ones and Mr Winston and the Bills give them Josh...now we have that Mitchell vs Jamies QB duel everyone was counting on for the starter spot 👍