Current Events > Studies are saying that protesting doesn't spread covid

(+) Yeah! (+)

So why did they close beaches and other outdoor social gatherings. I don't understand why being in large crowds, cramped together and shouting doesn't spread covid. Why did we even quarantine? Should have just closed indoor businesses only

---

Protesting doesn't spread covid because that would be racist

---

They're not saying that, though. If you read any, you'd know.

---

Studies aren't saying that protesting doesn't spread covid, though.

---

Why are so many people looking for gotcha moments?

---

Dustin_The_Wind posted...

Why are so many people looking for gotcha moments?

I'm not looking for it. They were just saying on the news that the protests actually decreased covid and how studies say protesting doesn't spread the disease which made me genuinely confused because that contradicts everything they said before the protests

---

seqntenialbeast posted...

I'm not looking for it. They were just saying on the news that the protests actually decreased covid and how studies say protesting doesn't spread the disease which made me genuinely confused because that contradicts everything they said before the protests

Sources, please.

---

The science is clear, the virus doesn't spread to people with the correct political views.

---

https://www.nber.org/papers/w27408.pdf

Hope that helps clarify your confusion. Always take any media explanation of research with a grain of salt tbh.

---

Jabodie posted...

https://www.nber.org/papers/w27408.pdf

Hope that helps clarify your confusion. Always take any explanation of research with a grain of salt tbh.

Sounds like the protesters are practicing social distancing, wearing masks, and using hand sanitizer.

---

I mean, there is plenty of video evidence that the protestors/rioters werent doing those things.

Jabodie posted...

https://www.nber.org/papers/w27408.pdf

Hope that helps clarify your confusion. Always take any media explanation of research with a grain of salt tbh.

I think individuals who are not educated in infectious disease spread may not be the best people to research an infectious disease.

---

Is this just gonna be a weekly thread now or what?

---

You'd be naive to believe that large protests haven't spread the disease at all, whatsoever.

It goes way beyond protests though. I've been working from home during this whole thing, but today, I had to go into downtown Pittsburgh and to the office. I'm downtown, I parked in a garage, I walk out, and not only is nobody wearing a mask at all whatsoever, everyone is hocking loogies on the ground and shit. No wonder Allegheny County had to close all the bars and restaurants again.

I'm an advocate of "don't live in fear, but do take precautions." But an insane number of people seem to give no shit at all, and we're reaping what we sow.

---

ohiostate124 posted...

I mean, there is plenty of video evidence that the protestors/rioters werent doing those things.

Using anonymous cell phone tracking data from SafeGraph, Inc., as well as data on the local prevalence of COVID-19 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we demonstrate that cities which had protests saw an increase in social distancing behavior for the overall population relative to cities that did not.

---

MabusIncarnate posted...

Is this just gonna be a weekly thread now or what?

Daily ;)

---

ZMythos posted...

Using anonymous cell phone tracking data from SafeGraph, Inc., as well as data on the local prevalence of COVID-19 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we demonstrate that cities which had protests saw an increase in social distancing behavior for the overall population relative to cities that did not.

1) Whole population, not the protest population. I know of plenty of people who were more 'on edge' with the protests taking place and either outright avoided the areas, or were in the areas very briefly.

2) Cell phone tracking only tracks some people and is in no way accurate to 6ft.

---

MaverickXeo posted...

I think individuals who are not educated in infectious disease spread may not be the best people to research an infectious disease.

Are you talking about the authors? Or the readers? Either way, the paper is very readable for any college educated person aside from the details of the methodology. Particularly the conclusion.

---

Notice how tc stopped replying.

---

Jabodie posted...

Are you talking about the authors? Or the readers? Either way, the paper is very readable for any college educated person aside from the details of the methodology. Particularly the conclusion.

The authors - they all specialize in economics and policy.

---

Jabodie posted...

Are you talking about the authors? Or the readers? Either way, the paper is very readable for any college educated person aside from the details of the methodology. Particularly the conclusion.

He's talking about the authors and the ones they got research support from. They are economists, not virologists or doctors.

---

Guide posted...

Notice how tc stopped replying.

He won the argument and now he's just letting the sore losers in here vent for a bit

---

And people wonder why America is so anti-science right now...

MaverickXeo posted...

1) Whole population, not the protest population. I know of plenty of people who were more 'on edge' with the protests taking place and either outright avoided the areas, or were in the areas very briefly.

There are other possible explanations for our findings as well, such as avoiding travel outside the home due to additional traffic congestion or street closures, or due to lack of available activities from businesses closures near protest sites. Additionally, non-attendees may perceive a higher risk of COVID-19 infection due to the protests and choose to stay home.


---

randy_123r posted...

Just curious, how would that change the results of their paper?

Bias is a real thing and does play a role in conducting a study. I will admit I only skimmed through some of the document, but typically, things like missing key data is possible, or purposely omitting data, etc.

It could also be like taking your car to a doctor. They might be very educated overall and might know how to fix it, but they are not the 'expert' in the field nor would they be the most efficient at it.

---

randy_123r posted...

Just curious, how would that change the results of their paper?

It would primarily impact the quality of their synthetic models. A few of these authors specialize in Health Economics, and were likely employed in this study for their familiarity with avoidance behavior and connecting economic/social issues with larger health impacts. So it seems they're familiar with interpreting health data, and are likely employing a basic model for their synthetic cases borrowed from health literature.

---

Now is that people who protest the use of masks as infringing upon their rights, people protesting police brutality, or both parties of protestors?

---

randy_123r posted...

I understand why you would think that, but I don't see any sort of bias in the article (although I'm no economist or doctor), so it's hard to see why I would immediately think a bias exists, even if they weren't doctors. Just feels wrong to immediately criticize the paper because the authors don't have the right titles without reading/comprehending it first. It also seems that a doctor isn't even necessary from what I've read, just someone who understands the basics of how the corona virus spreads, and someone who is extremely good with numbers and population statistics.

It's not unreasonable to have start with doubt when looking into papers. Even generally good researchers can put out stinkers once in a while.

From my perspective, it is literally impossible to evaluate whether their synthetic models to predict "non protest" case numbers are valid, so all I can really do is look at their credentials and trust their expertise. Where I feel reasonably comfortable with the authors' background, he doesn't and that's fine imo.

And it's easy to believe an overall explanation that makes intuitive sense (which is a trap I may be taking into). It is likely that there was higher spread within the protests that was offset by people afraid to go outside, resulting in a net zero effect according to their models. And that's the rub.

---

randy_123r posted...

I understand why you would think that, but I don't see any sort of bias in the article (although I'm no economist or doctor), so it's hard to see why I would immediately think a bias exists, even if they weren't doctors. Just feels wrong to immediately criticize the paper because the authors don't have the right titles without reading/comprehending it first. It also seems that a doctor isn't even necessary from what I've read, just someone who understands the basics of how the corona virus spreads, and someone who is extremely good with numbers and population statistics.

I think the reason why he (and others) are more likely to not immediately take the information for granted, is because it's one set of studies done by one group that aren't exactly the foremost experts on infectious disease. And their study isn't peer-reviewed by other groups or individuals either.

Jabodie posted...

It would primarily impact the quality of their synthetic models. A few of these authors specialize in Health Economics, and were likely employed in this study for their familiarity with avoidance behavior and connecting economic/social issues with larger health impacts. So it seems they're familiar with interpreting health data, and are likely employing a basic model for their synthetic car borrowed from health literature.

But this definitely is a fair take. Like you said, always take things with a grain of salt.

---