Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

JKUAN108 t1_ixvjkbx wrote

8

bkydx t1_ixvl6le wrote

BECAUSE THEY ALREADY KNOW THE CAUSE WAS THE BETA VARIANT.

Even non-causually attributing a known cause incorrectly is just plain lying and misleading.

Look https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2783110

Zero increase in covid from 600 sporting events with 10,000 people.

1

JKUAN108 t1_ixvlse3 wrote

> BECAUSE THEY ALREADY KNOW THE CAUSE WAS THE BETA VARIANT.

Right, this goes back to my question about a source for this.

> Look https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2783110

> Zero increase in covid from 600 sporting events with 10,000 people.

I already glanced at that article and responded in another comment. That article doesn’t mention the beta variant.

5

bkydx t1_ixvr6za wrote

Because Most scientist do not include the information that contradicts their entire paper and proves they are lying and incorrect.

Of course the article I linked doesn't mention the beta variant because it wasn't prevalent yet.

So you have 2 papers with different results looking at the same thing.

One shows 200% increase and one shows no increase.

From Aug-Dec they found no increase due to sporting events

From Sep 12th to February 7th shows a 200% increase during the Beta Outbreak.

Assuming both papers are truthful by looking and comparing their results and data you can reasonably assume outdoor stadiums are not a significant concern to the general population.

The amount of people Hosting football games at home with guests and watching at bars is significantly higher then fans that attend in person and I would argue indoor get-togethers are higher risk then outdoor stadiums.

−2

JKUAN108 t1_ixvrqm6 wrote

> BECAUSE THEY ALREADY KNOW THE CAUSE WAS THE BETA VARIANT.

> Of course the article I linked doesn't mention the beta variant because it wasn't prevalent yet.

Ok, so for the third time, what is your source on "the cause was the beta variant"? If your next reply doesn't have a source I am assuming that you just made this up.

> So you have 2 papers with different results looking at the same thing. One shows 200% increase and one shows no increase

No, the papers are actually consistent. One paper allowed for attendance up to 20,000 or more and found an increase in COVID. Another paper only considered limited attendance (up to 13,000) and found no increase. They do not "look at the same thing."

Also, you say that both papers look at the "same thing" and you say beta variant was prevalent in one paper but not the other? You are contradicting yourself.

> Assuming both papers are truthful by looking and comparing their results and data you can reasonably assume outdoor stadiums are not a significant concern to the general population.

They found this for outdoor stadiums with limited attendance, sure.

>I would argue indoor get-togethers are higher risk then outdoor stadiums.

I agree, but this doesn't contradict the paper that OP posted.

7

bkydx t1_ixw1x36 wrote

51 NBA games happened this week with close to 20,000 fans in attendance indoors and there were are no 200% covid increase outbreaks happening.

Thanks for your input but there is far too much evidence proving you wrong.

One single snap shot during the 95% of the worst of the Beta variant is just showing the effects of the beta outbreak. All of the data agrees.

1

JKUAN108 t1_ixw2go6 wrote

> One single snap shot during the 95% of the worst of the Beta variant is just showing the effects of the beta outbreak.

Ok, for the SEVENTH time: do you have any source at all about your claims on the Beta variant or not?

> 51 NBA games happened this week with close to 20,000 fans in attendance indoors and there were are no 200% covid increase outbreaks happening.

Did you account for increased vaccination and natural immunity rates?

3