vtman7 t1_ixugu2s wrote
Interesting, because most of these games were held outside with social distancing. I thought it had become accepted that covid doesn’t spread as easily in outdoor settings
SpecificFail t1_ixukaip wrote
Less easily doesn't mean that it can't, just that it is harder to spread through one avenue of infection. You still have large numbers of people congregating and existing in a common space. Railings, bathroom facilities, eating, packing themselves into corridors getting in and out of the stadium. This is ignoring the fact that most did not practice social distancing or wearing masks. If you think social distancing was being actively followed, you were kidding yourself.
The point that jumps out in my head was watching a college championship game, people in stands without a mask to be seen, standing shoulder to shoulder, game is over, and they all crowd the field hugging, kissing, partying.
There were no guidelines actually being followed at these events, not even remotely. In some states, it was even encouraged to not follow guidelines just to thumb their nose at liberals.
Odd-Independent6177 t1_ixv0kcc wrote
Also, travel to and from the game would be a factor. People from multiple households probably spending an hour plus in a car together, unmasked, talking boisterously about the game, assuming / implying they are hoarse from cheering.
And because these connections weren’t being made in real time and communicated in plain language by local news, each game was incorrectly interpreted as evidence that it was just fine. Even my own husband was like “people are going to all these sporting events and it seems fine.” Shoulda made the NFL fund some test and trace.
prof_hobart t1_ixumjdz wrote
Even if the game is outside, the concourses to get to and from your seats usually aren't.
bkydx t1_ixv3xjl wrote
But you can wear a mask and the area's are somewhat ventilated and not very high risk.
Millions of people are going in to the office and classrooms with significantly worse ventilation daily and anyone who has a clue about statistics knows the 20,000 compared to 50,000,000 had zero effect.
They cherry picked 270 games during that happened during the New covid mutations that caused huge waves and spikes.
prof_hobart t1_ixvp647 wrote
You can, but it only takes one infected person to not be wearing one to make it a covid hotspot. And every new person who does the same increases the risk.
And yes millions of people go to work, but not all in the same building.
>anyone who has a clue about statistics knows the 20,000 compared to 50,000,000 had zero effect.
Yet it seems that it did have an effect
>They cherry picked 270 games
How many games of similar capacity did they not look at over that time?
JKUAN108 t1_ixuj8i9 wrote
>outside with social distancing
From the article:
> Games with fewer than 5000 fans were not associated with any spikes, but in counties where teams had 20 000 fans in attendance, there were 2.23 times the rate of spikes in COVID-19 (95% CI, 1.53 to ∞).
bkydx t1_ixv0nbt wrote
Because it didn't spread outdoors.
Key Points.
Data is very cherry picked and anything that didn't fit their agenda was left out.
Sometimes there were no spikes from huge attendances.
5000 or less attendance had no spikes.
All Spikes and data collected was at the start of the current wave where cases were increasing drastically before the NFL games took place.
20000 people at an outdoor football game is a drop in the bucket compared to 50,000,000 students being crammed poorly ventilated classrooms daily.
Over 1000 NFL games but lets only pick the 270 that occurred at the beginning of a Covid mutation that was going to have a huge Wave regardless and attribute 100% of it to the NFL.
cyberentomology t1_ixv2ns1 wrote
It would also be interesting to compare enclosed stadiums vs outdoor, but there may not be enough data here.
bkydx t1_ixv6jmo wrote
Enclosed stadiums still have sufficient fresh air and with decent masking in indoor areas they should be very low risk but higher then outdoors which is almost a zero.
cyberentomology t1_ixv6sem wrote
Show your work.
[deleted] t1_ixv5ylx wrote
[removed]
IT_GUY_23 t1_ixui89k wrote
I've seen a lot more evidence supporting this than anything the author's are claiming...is this actually a scientific article or just anecdotal?
JKUAN108 t1_ixuj99u wrote
> Games with fewer than 5000 fans were not associated with any spikes, but in counties where teams had 20 000 fans in attendance, there were 2.23 times the rate of spikes in COVID-19 (95% CI, 1.53 to ∞).
bkydx t1_ixv2tdj wrote
They are taking data from the new covid strains spikes and attributing it to football.
Definitely a few people would catch covid waiting 30 minutes in line for a beer while not masking but very unlikely to be spreading viciously through the stands.
20,000 people at a stadium doesn't compare to 50,000,000 million students in classrooms daily or millions in offices.
Korwinga t1_ixv82le wrote
Where are you getting 1000 games from? They were only looking at the 2020 season, which only had the 256 games plus playoffs which is 13 games. Am I missing something?
[deleted] t1_ixvamee wrote
[deleted]
Korwinga t1_ixvb7t8 wrote
Do teams play solo in your version of the NFL? Each game should have 2 teams, unless I'm seriously misunderstanding football.
Also, here's the Wikipedia article for the 2020 season. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_NFL_season
bkydx t1_ixvg7a0 wrote
I Updated the number of games and looked closer at the data.
They did have 269 games but the data used is only from 100 games.
Toumi et al looked at 600 games and an average attendance of 10,000 and found no increase in covid cases by county because it wasn't cherry picked during the worst part of the beta variant.
Korwinga t1_ixvv46b wrote
>They did have 269 games but the data used is only from 100 games.
Where do you get this idea from? Here's what the paper says:
>This included a total of 269 NFL game dates. Of these games, 117 were assigned to an exposed group (fans attended), and the remaining 152 games comprised the unexposed group (unattended). Fan attendance ranged from 748 to 31 700 persons. Fan attendance was associated with episodic spikes in COVID-19 cases and rates in the 14-day window for the in-county (cases: rate ratio [RR], 1.36; 95% CI, 1.00-1.87), contiguous counties (cases: RR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.00-1.72; rates: RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.13-1.76), and pooled counties groups (cases: RR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.01-1.79; rates: RR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.29-2.28) as well as for the 21-day window in-county (cases: RR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.21-1.83; rates: RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.26-1.78), in contiguous counties(cases: RR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.14-1.65; rates: RR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.24-1.71), and pooled counties groups (cases: RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.11-1.79; rates: RR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.35-2.15). Games with fewer than 5000 fans were not associated with any spikes, but in counties where teams had 20 000 fans in attendance, there were 2.23 times the rate of spikes in COVID-19 (95% CI, 1.53 to ∞).
They looked at all of the 269 games. 117 were part of the exposed group and 152 was the unexposed group.
bkydx t1_ixvvdz0 wrote
I got the idea from the source sited in the paper where they took all of their data from.
Should I get the data the paper analyzed from the paper from some else?
Korwinga t1_ixvwz7h wrote
What are you talking about? Are you looking at a different article than the rest of us? They talked through the methods that they used to pull the data. It's all from public sources, not from another paper.
First off, your link is broken, but I think I was able to navigate to what you're trying to point at. I'm still not seeing where they used the data for only 100 games though. Can you quote something specific?
Korwinga t1_ixvd43q wrote
Way to just edit out all of your mistakes. Do you agree that they aren't cherry picking data now? Why even leave this comment up if the main pillar of your criticism is gone?
bkydx t1_ixvglzi wrote
They cherry picked 100 of the 269 games and are only looking at the worst part of the Beta variant.
Similar better conducted studies show there was no increase in covid due to NFL and NCAA games.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2783110
Korwinga t1_ixvxmib wrote
Wait, is this what happened? You got confused. Your "better study" is actually the one that is using (potentially) cherry picked data. They are only analyzing 101 of the NFL games over their time period. Is this where you got the idea that the OP study was only analyzing 100 games?
Ironically enough, OP's study actually discusses this study and why it got different results. It might help if you actually read the study before criticizing it.
vtman7 t1_ixuimqh wrote
When I see articles like this, it seems like the authors are trying to come to the conclusion they want. Anything is possible if you cherry pick and manipulate data points
Korwinga t1_ixvbej2 wrote
There's no cherry picking here. They used the data from all the games in the 2020 season.
JKUAN108 t1_ixuja23 wrote
> Games with fewer than 5000 fans were not associated with any spikes, but in counties where teams had 20 000 fans in attendance, there were 2.23 times the rate of spikes in COVID-19 (95% CI, 1.53 to ∞).
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments