JKUAN108 t1_ixuba57 wrote
Reply to comment by HToTD in A study of NFL games during the 2020 season suggests a link between attendance and COVID spikes in surrounding counties 14 and 21 days later. The inferred connection held strongest for games attended by 20,000-plus fans by Wagamaga
You are correct, as the authors acknowledge:
>Limitations
>Several limitations should be noted. First, it was impossible to assess cause and effect to the fan-attended games and the increase in cases or rates over the ensuing weeks. For example, it is possible that areas with less stringent COVID-19 restrictions, which research has linked to higher incidences of cases and deaths,20 were more encouraging of higher fan attendance. As such, these findings should be interpreted as associational and not causal.
HToTD t1_ixujuq4 wrote
You might be able to seperate the effects if you compared (days to spike) with (attendance as a percentage of capacity) and (attendance as a percentage of expected non-covid attendance)
You'd then have variables for both fan density at the game and relative fearlessness of the fanbase. With more data, maybe global data, and some transformations you could get better results.
JKUAN108 t1_ixul9jl wrote
They did compare attendance, with results differing with <5,000 fans and >20,000 fans.
elralpho t1_ixvh40n wrote
They were saying attendance should be presented as percentage of max capacity though, which could add some nuance to results. From a glance at wikipedia, theres about a 20k seat difference between the smallest and largest NFL stadiums
bkydx t1_ixv75c4 wrote
They could have also used all of the data instead of only 25% of it cherry picking games that occurred during the waves from the new covid strains and then attributing the new strains effect to the actions of 5000 people instead of the millions of students going to class and factory and office workers.
Tony_Sacrimoni t1_ixvhmzf wrote
The study and parent comment to the one you're responding to literally say that there is only an association and cause cannot be determined from the data.
bkydx t1_ixvi6of wrote
But even the fact they are inferring any relationship at all is misleading.
This study looked at 6 times the games with higher average attendance and showed no increase at all in covid by county because it wasn't conducted during the Beta variant outbreak.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2783110
JKUAN108 t1_ixvr5xe wrote
> https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2783110
I analyzed this article in this comment here, are you going to reply or concede my point?
bkydx t1_ixv7us4 wrote
The new covid mutations caused the waves and spikes and the NFL had nothing to do with it.
Cherry picking only 100 games out of 269 that occurred when the Beta mutation was causing massive spikes then associating it an outdoor NFL game with no cause or evidence is misleading.
JKUAN108 t1_ixvb69a wrote
Which mutation occurred during the 2020 NFL season?
In what way did they cherry pick those 270 games?
They never claimed the NFL caused anything. They explicitly say their results are not causal.
bkydx t1_ixvhiud wrote
The Beta Variant was during the 2020-2021 season.
They only used data from 100 of the 269 games.
Toumi et Al used the data from 600 games with an average of 10,000 people and showed no increase in covid in the county.
They clearly are not causal nor even related and the only reason it has any correlation is because the data is taken during the Beta variant outbreak.
JKUAN108 t1_ixvje3g wrote
> Toumi et Al used the data from 600 games with an average of 10,000 people and showed no increase in covid in the county.
I found the link:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8371570/
They considered limited attendance with a median of 9949 people (6000 to 13 797) and found no increase in COVID activity.
This paper that OP posted here did not consider specifically limited attendance, and allowed for attendance at 20,000 or higher (as mentioned in the title). They also found no increased covid activity at <5,000 people, consistent with the Toumi, et al. paper. So it appears that the paper you cited has results consistent with the paper that OP posted. So limited attendance (perhaps even up to 10,000-13,000) does not increase COVID, although attendance of 20,000 people does increase COVID.
[deleted] t1_ixvm6cx wrote
[removed]
JKUAN108 t1_ixvhux4 wrote
> the only reason
Do you have a source that it’s the only reason?
I will take a look at the other paper you mentioned
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments