Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

42 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.

Yep. My doctor won't get vaccinated - she told me without me even asking. My GF's mother is a medical technician and she won't either. Many doctors and scientists have different views, but those diverging from the official line dare not speak of publicly. And it's clear as day the media only have the more "prudent" ones on cue.

 

Enough of that anyway. My point was that because of what's happening in Texas we will able to see soon enough. Either it was too soon or it wasn't. Facts speak louder than your or my or anyone's opinions and theories. 

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 138
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

"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 ot

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.

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-dru

Posted Images

This study is a hot, humid pile of bull####.   

 

On page 8, bolded and underlined by me:

 

"Our work is the first to explore this issue and as such we are mindful of some of the limitations of our study. First, as
is the case with individual COVID-19 infections, it is impossible for us to assess cause and effect to the fan-attended
games and the increase in cases/rates over the ensuing weeks. However, the consistency of our findings is striking.
 

Another limitation of our work is that we cannot determine whether the increases in transmission and cases were due directly to fan attendance at the stadium, to tailgating around the stadium or to individuals congregating in the homes of family and friends.

 

Second, because there would be too many variables involved in assessing and linking cases of mortality to fan attendance beyond their simple attendance at a game, we were unable to–and uncomfortable with–using the data or our analysis from a whole-of-league approach.

 

However, if a study warranted, we would be able to apply our model to assess mortality at a local/county-level for specific states. Third, we note that some NFL teams had home games where only friends and family attended. These games were not included in the analyses due to data unreliability, as not all teams may have publicly announced the occurrence of these games. Lastly, for those cases where we did not identify a spike in cases, we are unsure precisely what may have
contributed to that outcome, such as specific health and safety protocols for example
."

 

 

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Disagree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, appoo said:

 

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.


Itll be interesting to see what happens for sure.  Covid-19 has been really unpredictable, so it’ll be a great learning experience.  For example, Texas lessening many of their restrictions was though my to be irresponsible by many, but Texas is one of the states that has not see a surge this year, and is instead seeing a constant decline since it lessened restrictions.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, dpberr said:

This study is a hot, humid pile of bull####.   

 

On page 8, bolded and underlined by me:

 

"Our work is the first to explore this issue and as such we are mindful of some of the limitations of our study. First, as
is the case with individual COVID-19 infections, it is impossible for us to assess cause and effect to the fan-attended
games and the increase in cases/rates over the ensuing weeks. However, the consistency of our findings is striking.
 

Another limitation of our work is that we cannot determine whether the increases in transmission and cases were due directly to fan attendance at the stadium, to tailgating around the stadium or to individuals congregating in the homes of family and friends.

 

Second, because there would be too many variables involved in assessing and linking cases of mortality to fan attendance beyond their simple attendance at a game, we were unable to–and uncomfortable with–using the data or our analysis from a whole-of-league approach.

 

However, if a study warranted, we would be able to apply our model to assess mortality at a local/county-level for specific states. Third, we note that some NFL teams had home games where only friends and family attended. These games were not included in the analyses due to data unreliability, as not all teams may have publicly announced the occurrence of these games. Lastly, for those cases where we did not identify a spike in cases, we are unsure precisely what may have
contributed to that outcome, such as specific health and safety protocols for example
."

 

 


 

Why would you say it is bull - it is perfectly reasonable and sound and fits exactly what should come out of a data driven study like this.

 

They stated that they could not link the direct cause - they can see when the stadium allowed >5000 fans that the stadium and surrounding neighborhoods saw a spike in cases in 2-3 weeks and this occurred several times in several locations.  All of the underlying other factors in this situations may have been different - weather, holiday, openness/closeness of the region - these were all different variables that impacted the rates, but the general data showed consistent increases in the neighborhoods around the stadium beyond similar neighborhoods outside the area.

 

The study makes it clear that they are not saying all or even most of the spread occurred at the games themselves - they stated that the gathering of people to attend the game lead to other large gatherings associated with the games that were not present in those same cities (or other NFL cities) when fans could not attend.  You specifically highlighted the part - it is not clear transmission occurred in the stadium, or get togethers like tailgating or traveling to get to the game, or these individuals congregating at home before the game - which includes practices such as dining out more frequently the night before, hitting up bars that might be open, etc.  

 

What the data showed was when no fans were at the game the numbers around the stadium and in the surrounding areas were consistent, but when >5000 fans were allowed - you saw spikes in the immediate areas that were not seen in the same surrounding reasons.

 

Second because teams allowed limited family to attend without tickets - those numbers were nearly impossible to determine and therefore the could not be used - whereas regular fans you could follow because they still listed attendance numbers.  They tried to be as consistent as possible, but I am sure if you could provide them with exact numbers of friends and family allowed into games that had no fans they could re-evaluate the data, but since that number was never recorded - the data behind it is useless.

 

Lastly you complain that they decided not to do a mortality study based upon their findings when in reality that would be nearly impossible because the mortality rises at a much different rate and would vary.  They can look at region’s mortality rate and probably see spikes 6-8 weeks after a game and assume some of the spike was due to the gathering of fans, but as with overall mortality rate - it would be spotty and they didn’t feel it added to the data.

 

It is no different than any post event model that looks back at these types of things and they were very thoughtful in the approach.  The things you complain about are things they purposely thought about and realized although the data supports this - it is not a direct thing.  They are only suggesting that in numerous instances after games with fans areas saw spikes and the game seems like the driver - whether it was at the game or someplace else they could not tell.

 

That same caution plays into why in the cases where a spike was not noted and fans gathered - they do not have enough info to say what those sites did right.  Did this stadium maintain better cleaning, we’re the parking lots better patrolled, without knowing the exact reason for the spike you can’t provide an exact reason for no spike when teams did well.

 

Overall - I do not understand why this study would make people mad or upset or complain at all.  The conclusions are all logical based upon the data and the study assigned no blame to stadiums or said that anything was their fault.  The study broke no new ground as it is quite obvious that large gatherings were the driver of the illness from the beginning.  The only thing this showed is that the NFL games with fans provided an emphasis for more large get togethers than NFL games with no fans.

6 minutes ago, Prospector said:

and when we have found out that Tampa Bay's post Super Bowl flooded street celebrations and gatherings have not produced the spike in cases like some hoped for... then we may be in the clear. It is also surprising how deaths caused by pneumonia and the flu have dropped dramatically this last year when the government started paying for Covid deaths... at least this Covid cured those illnesses/deaths. Here in Nevada, fatal car accidents have even been linked to Covid... but there is no exaggeration to these covid reports at all! 


 

Flu deaths are way down because the same things that limit Covid limit Flu (and many other things like colds that lead to pneumonia.

 

The actual best data for effectiveness of masks and social distancing is the lack of flu this year.  It shows exactly how effective that strategy is to contain air born illness.

  • Vomit 1
  • Agree 2
  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:


 

Why would you say it is bull - it is perfectly reasonable and sound and fits exactly what should come out of a data driven study like this.

 

They stated that they could not link the direct cause - they can see when the stadium allowed >5000 fans that the stadium and surrounding neighborhoods saw a spike in cases in 2-3 weeks and this occurred several times in several locations.  All of the underlying other factors in this situations may have been different - weather, holiday, openness/closeness of the region - these were all different variables that impacted the rates, but the general data showed consistent increases in the neighborhoods around the stadium beyond similar neighborhoods outside the area.

 

The study makes it clear that they are not saying all or even most of the spread occurred at the games themselves - they stated that the gathering of people to attend the game lead to other large gatherings associated with the games that were not present in those same cities (or other NFL cities) when fans could not attend.  You specifically highlighted the part - it is not clear transmission occurred in the stadium, or get togethers like tailgating or traveling to get to the game, or these individuals congregating at home before the game - which includes practices such as dining out more frequently the night before, hitting up bars that might be open, etc.  

 

What the data showed was when no fans were at the game the numbers around the stadium and in the surrounding areas were consistent, but when >5000 fans were allowed - you saw spikes in the immediate areas that were not seen in the same surrounding reasons.

 

Second because teams allowed limited family to attend without tickets - those numbers were nearly impossible to determine and therefore the could not be used - whereas regular fans you could follow because they still listed attendance numbers.  They tried to be as consistent as possible, but I am sure if you could provide them with exact numbers of friends and family allowed into games that had no fans they could re-evaluate the data, but since that number was never recorded - the data behind it is useless.

 

Lastly you complain that they decided not to do a mortality study based upon their findings when in reality that would be nearly impossible because the mortality rises at a much different rate and would vary.  They can look at region’s mortality rate and probably see spikes 6-8 weeks after a game and assume some of the spike was due to the gathering of fans, but as with overall mortality rate - it would be spotty and they didn’t feel it added to the data.

 

It is no different than any post event model that looks back at these types of things and they were very thoughtful in the approach.  The things you complain about are things they purposely thought about and realized although the data supports this - it is not a direct thing.  They are only suggesting that in numerous instances after games with fans areas saw spikes and the game seems like the driver - whether it was at the game or someplace else they could not tell.

 

That same caution plays into why in the cases where a spike was not noted and fans gathered - they do not have enough info to say what those sites did right.  Did this stadium maintain better cleaning, we’re the parking lots better patrolled, without knowing the exact reason for the spike you can’t provide an exact reason for no spike when teams did well.

 

Overall - I do not understand why this study would make people mad or upset or complain at all.  The conclusions are all logical based upon the data and the study assigned no blame to stadiums or said that anything was their fault.  The study broke no new ground as it is quite obvious that large gatherings were the driver of the illness from the beginning.  The only thing this showed is that the NFL games with fans provided an emphasis for more large get togethers than NFL games with no fans.

The conclusions are not logical and the wide array of variables do not make reliable. 

  • Dislike 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours 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.

It’s difficult to address these football relevant topics in a non political manner, but I’ll try. I generally despise the idea of a vaccine “ passport” or whatever they want to call it to attend a football game etc.  However, as a consumer I’d be perfectly fine with it IF it met certain other criteria . Namely , NO masks, NO reduced capacity and NO “ distancing” beyond previous norms. When the State gets involved, they seem to want ALL of these things which is excessive , overly burdensome and pointless. What good is getting vaccinated if a returning to normal is not the desired outcome?  So for the 2021 season ONLY,  the NFL should open stadiums either to limited ( more than 10% though; again ridiculously low) capacity with masks and distancing OR to full capacity with requirement of proof of vaccination, negative test or proof of antibodies. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Vomit 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Prospector said:

The conclusions are not logical and the wide array of variables do not make reliable. 


 

The conclusions are logical - we test everyone with symptoms for flu and Covid - we still see a ton of Covid positives, but we are still tracking with under 100 flu positives for the season.  This has by far been the lightest - least active flu season in the last 40 years and the difference is our behavior.

 

Last year we would see more positive flu tests each day than we have seen this entire year.  Just because you don’t get it doesn’t make it wrong. 

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Vomit 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, njbuff said:

Yeah, it was football games that had 1,700 fans or so that caused spikes in COVID.

 

Someone needs to tell the idiot who wrote that thing that football games are about 1000th thing down the list you look at in terms of spikes.

You may be onto something here. The WNY region had plenty of spikes in Covid ( as we were so frequently reminded ), however we had zero fan attendance at football games through the entire regular season. Doesn’t appear to be a link 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 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

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

  • Vomit 1
  • Disagree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes 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.


Thank goodness I live in the south.  I’ll just go the Bills/Dolphins and Bills/Jags games while not concerning myself with ever trying to get to NY for a game. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SCBills said:


Thank goodness I live in the south.  I’ll just go the Bills/Dolphins and Bills/Jags games while not concerning myself with ever trying to get to NY for a game. 

For at least the 2021 NFL season, you’re probably better off with this strategy. 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SCBills said:


Thank goodness I live in the south.  I’ll just go the Bills/Dolphins and Bills/Jags games while not concerning myself with ever trying to get to NY for a game. 

 

I live in the south as well, I feel bad for people who live in states that are going to require a vaccination card. HIPAA laws are going away I suppose. 😳

  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Southern_Bills said:

 

I live in the south as well, I feel bad for people who live in states that are going to require a vaccination card. HIPAA laws are going away I suppose. 😳

Hopefully they are not, but as I’ve stated I’m willing ( for the upcoming season) to show such proof IF it means extraneous restrictive measures such as masks etc are done away with. Otherwise, no point and I will attend a couple of road games. MIA appears most desirable if it’s outside of Sept/ Oct and possibly N.O or TEN 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jerome007 said:

Yep. My doctor won't get vaccinated - she told me without me even asking. My GF's mother is a medical technician and she won't either. Many doctors and scientists have different views, but those diverging from the official line dare not speak of publicly. And it's clear as day the media only have the more "prudent" ones on cue.

 

*blink*  *blink*

For the past year, my own eyes have beheld, and not as a stranger - the contrary

I will not broaden with examples here

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...