The CardBoard
Commentary on the Surge of Infections - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forumdisplay.php?fid=11)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forumdisplay.php?fid=12)
+--- Thread: Commentary on the Surge of Infections (/showthread.php?tid=19971)

Pages: 1 2 3


Commentary on the Surge of Infections - Genuine Realist - 06-29-2020

Offered without comment. The rise in lower age groups is particularly interesting. 

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/noah-rothman/the-protests-and-the-surge/?utm_medium=push_notificaions&utm_source=onesignal&utm_campaign=automated


RE: Commentary on the Surge of Infections - burger - 06-29-2020

(06-29-2020, 10:45 AM)Genuine Realist Wrote:  Offered without comment. The rise in lower age groups is particularly interesting. 

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/noah-rothman/the-protests-and-the-surge/?utm_medium=push_notificaions&utm_source=onesignal&utm_campaign=automated

I just looked at the numbers for New York, DC, and PA, all of which had of immense proportions protests, and there is no recent increase in any covid metric.  Here's New York City's data specifically.  Scroll down and you'll see no increase in cases or positive test % recently.  https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page

Attributing the increases elsewhere to the protest is completely specious.  You could just as easily say that Memorial Day get-togethers were to blame.  Meanwhile, there is lots of evidence that social distancing has been decreasing for months in the US.  Check out the graph below from Apple's mobility data: https://www.apple.com/covid19/mobility That is your explanation, not protests.

[Image: B4jPSQ0.png]


RE: Commentary on the Surge of Infections - Genuine Realist - 06-29-2020

(06-29-2020, 11:18 AM)burger Wrote:  
(06-29-2020, 10:45 AM)Genuine Realist Wrote:  Offered without comment. The rise in lower age groups is particularly interesting. 

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/noah-rothman/the-protests-and-the-surge/?utm_medium=push_notificaions&utm_source=onesignal&utm_campaign=automated

I just looked at the numbers for New York, DC, and PA, all of which had of immense proportions protests, and there is no recent increase in any covid metric.  Here's New York City's data specifically.  Scroll down and you'll see no increase in cases or positive test % recently.  https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page

Attributing the increases elsewhere to the protest is completely specious.  You could just as easily say that Memorial Day get-togethers were to blame.  Meanwhile, there is lots of evidence that social distancing has been decreasing for months in the US.  Check out the graph below from Apple's mobility data: https://www.apple.com/covid19/mobility That is your explanation, not protests.

[Image: B4jPSQ0.png]
It's counterintuitive in the extreme to think they had no statistical effect.

But also to be considered is the effect on social discipline, undermining the regimen. If social distancing can be abandoned in this context, why not Party Hardy in others?


RE: Commentary on the Surge of Infections - oregontim - 06-29-2020

(06-29-2020, 10:45 AM)Genuine Realist Wrote:  Offered without comment. The rise in lower age groups is particularly interesting. 

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/noah-rothman/the-protests-and-the-surge/?utm_medium=push_notificaions&utm_source=onesignal&utm_campaign=automated

There are many better sources available on whether or not protests spread the virus. In Eugene, where we've had our share of protests, public officials linked the surge in new cases to three specific graduation parties of kids 18-20. As reported in the local newspaper, which is Gannet owned, i.e. leaning right. 

Allsides.com rates Commentary Magazine as its lowest level confidence rating and its furthest available level to the right. https://www.allsides.com/news-source/commentary-magazine-media-bias

For a less biased source, in How to Evaluate Corona Virus Risks from Black Lives Matter Protests' Scientific American on June 22 said:

Quote:There is not much evidence that the protests have caused spikes in coronavirus infections so far. And any increase in cases from the protests would be hard to separate from the fact that states are reopening in general, according to Caroline Buckee, an associate professor of epidemiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Scientific American spoke with Buckee about the risks posed by protesting, the difficulty of tracing infections back to the protests, and how to stay safe while exercising one’s democratic rights.

[Image: AllSidesMediaBiasChart_Version1.1_11.18.19.jpg]


RE: Commentary on the Surge of Infections - 2006alum - 06-29-2020

(06-29-2020, 11:42 AM)oregontim Wrote:  
(06-29-2020, 10:45 AM)Genuine Realist Wrote:  Offered without comment. The rise in lower age groups is particularly interesting. 

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/noah-rothman/the-protests-and-the-surge/?utm_medium=push_notificaions&utm_source=onesignal&utm_campaign=automated

Allsides.com rates Commentary Magazine as its lowest level confidence rating and its furthest available level to the right. https://www.allsides.com/news-source/commentary-magazine-media-bias

It's easy to offer something with no comment when the comment(ary) is built into the piece. Nothing wrong with sharing op-eds, but doing so is generally a tacit endorsement in the absence of appended commentary to the contrary. 

If we settled on the notion that the protests no doubt had some non-zero contribution to the surge, but were not a chief driver, would many take issue with such an assessment? From everything I've read, I am more worried about crowded indoor restaurants and bars than outdoor protests, clambakes, or any other large social gatherings where facemasks are worn... Sure, every large outdoor gathering with masks poses a risk, but my view is any form of outdoor, mask-wearing activity is substantially safer than anything indoor and without masks. 

...But I realize the algorithms don't like that take, because it doesn't tend to inflame. :P


RE: Commentary on the Surge of Infections - burger - 06-29-2020

(06-29-2020, 11:30 AM)Genuine Realist Wrote:  
(06-29-2020, 11:18 AM)burger Wrote:  
(06-29-2020, 10:45 AM)Genuine Realist Wrote:  Offered without comment. The rise in lower age groups is particularly interesting. 
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/noah-rothman/the-protests-and-the-surge/?utm_medium=push_notificaions&utm_source=onesignal&utm_campaign=automated
I just looked at the numbers for New York, DC, and PA, all of which had of immense proportions protests, and there is no recent increase in any covid metric.  Here's New York City's data specifically.  Scroll down and you'll see no increase in cases or positive test % recently.  https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page

Attributing the increases elsewhere to the protest is completely specious.  You could just as easily say that Memorial Day get-togethers were to blame.  Meanwhile, there is lots of evidence that social distancing has been decreasing for months in the US.  Check out the graph below from Apple's mobility data: https://www.apple.com/covid19/mobility That is your explanation, not protests.
It's counterintuitive in the extreme to think they had no statistical effect.

But also to be considered is the effect on social discipline, undermining the regimen. If social distancing can be abandoned in this context, why not Party Hardy in others?

If the protests had a large effect, we'd be seeing it in New York and PA and DC, etc.  If the protests had a small effect, then who cares? 

If you, or that Commentary author, are going to offer up a hypothesis, you should show some data to back it up.  Meanwhile, the data from several states goes directly against your hypothesis.

Please offer some actual evidence to support your theories. Otherwise, it's just an opinion and not worth further discussion.


RE: Commentary on the Surge of Infections - Genuine Realist - 06-29-2020

(06-29-2020, 11:47 AM)2006alum Wrote:  
(06-29-2020, 11:42 AM)oregontim Wrote:  
(06-29-2020, 10:45 AM)Genuine Realist Wrote:  Offered without comment. The rise in lower age groups is particularly interesting. 

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/noah-rothman/the-protests-and-the-surge/?utm_medium=push_notificaions&utm_source=onesignal&utm_campaign=automated

Allsides.com rates Commentary Magazine as its lowest level confidence rating and its furthest available level to the right. https://www.allsides.com/news-source/commentary-magazine-media-bias

It's easy to offer something with no comment when the comment(ary) is built into the piece. Nothing wrong with sharing op-eds, but doing so is generally a tacit endorsement in the absence of appended commentary to the contrary. 

If we settled on the notion that the protests no doubt had some non-zero contribution to the surge, but were not a chief driver, would many take issue with such an assessment? From everything I've read, I am more worried about crowded indoor restaurants and bars than outdoor protests, clambakes, or any other large social gatherings where facemasks are worn... Sure, every large outdoor gathering with masks poses a risk, but my view is any form of outdoor, mask-wearing activity is substantially safer than anything indoor and without masks. 

...But I realize the algorithms don't like that take, because it doesn't tend to inflame. :P
I was more interested in the demographics of the spread. However, to dismiss the protests as a factor out of hand is nonsense.

The more pernicious effect, as I think of it, is in the presentation. Both protests and coverage placed the virus in such a secondary position - all nut disregarded - that it was easy to think that the issue is behind. Add to that the coincidence of staged reopening, and you have a lot of people who lst all sense of danger.


RE: Commentary on the Surge of Infections - oldalum - 06-29-2020

Statistical analyses looking for a bump in infections temporally related to the protests, and accounting for other factors that might also be at play during that period, are unlikely to be able to convincingly detect and attribute a relatively small increase in cases to the protests. I haven't seen any solid evidence either way (the absence of evidence of a bump also doesn't mean there wasn't one, just that there wasn't a large one). The places that are doing good contact tracing (if there are any) would have much better information but I haven't seen any reports from them.


RE: Commentary on the Surge of Infections - Farm93 - 06-29-2020

(06-29-2020, 11:47 AM)2006alum Wrote:  
(06-29-2020, 11:42 AM)oregontim Wrote:  
(06-29-2020, 10:45 AM)Genuine Realist Wrote:  Offered without comment. The rise in lower age groups is particularly interesting. 

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/noah-rothman/the-protests-and-the-surge/?utm_medium=push_notificaions&utm_source=onesignal&utm_campaign=automated

Allsides.com rates Commentary Magazine as its lowest level confidence rating and its furthest available level to the right. https://www.allsides.com/news-source/commentary-magazine-media-bias

It's easy to offer something with no comment when the comment(ary) is built into the piece. Nothing wrong with sharing op-eds, but doing so is generally a tacit endorsement in the absence of appended commentary to the contrary. 

If we settled on the notion that the protests no doubt had some non-zero contribution to the surge, but were not a chief driver, would many take issue with such an assessment? From everything I've read, I am more worried about crowded indoor restaurants and bars than outdoor protests, clambakes, or any other large social gatherings where facemasks are worn... Sure, every large outdoor gathering with masks poses a risk, but my view is any form of outdoor, mask-wearing activity is substantially safer than anything indoor and without masks. 

...But I realize the algorithms don't like that take, because it doesn't tend to inflame. :P
As the USA lacks the tracing capabilities that are common in other countries we will never know which activities were most responsible for the recent surge.  (Memorial Day Activities, Black Lives Matter, Opening of Restaurants and Bars, or resumption of indoor scale church activities or other)

Probably safe to say, based on experiences in other countries, that any one of those items could have been significant enough to start us back up the curve.  Ultimately they all happened AND we don't have tracing at the level needed, so back to SIP for us.


RE: Commentary on the Surge of Infections - M T - 06-29-2020

(06-29-2020, 11:42 AM)oregontim Wrote:  https://www.allsides.com/sites/default/files/AllSidesMediaBiasChart_Version1.1_11.18.19.jpg
Interesting how many of those in the leftmost column are used as sources when I go to Google News.

I'm a little tempted to find how many threads in our COVID-19 board have links to sources in each column.  I'm not sure that's too meaningful without knowing whether the link is being held up for ridicule or being used for information.


RE: Commentary on the Surge of Infections - JustAnotherFan - 06-30-2020

This is anecdotal but in my top 15 city in population the place where I have seen the highest percentage of mask usage has been the protests, not the people hanging out in parks together, going into bars or restaurants together, or walking around town together. I cannot imagine that thousands of people marching wearing masks trumps the scores of thousands doing those other activities unmasked. 

However, when the cops began shooting pepper spray at people (and in NYC and Philly pulling people's masks off to pepper spray them in the face) and then sending them to jail for protesting, well yeah, that could help spread Covid.


RE: Commentary on the Surge of Infections - BostonCard - 06-30-2020

This article suggested that there was an inverse correlation between the protests and COVID-19 outbreaks. Moreover, it suggests that because of the protests, other people stayed home, so it actually served as a breaker on the worsening of the outbreak.

I’m not sure I buy it, but an NbER paper is cited.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/06/30/black-lives-matter-protests-did-not-cause-an-uptick-in-covid-19-cases

BC


RE: Commentary on the Surge of Infections - 2006alum - 07-01-2020

(06-30-2020, 04:33 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  This article suggested that there was an inverse correlation between the protests and COVID-19 outbreaks. Moreover, it suggests that because of the protests, other people stayed home, so it actually served as a breaker on the worsening of the outbreak.

I’m not sure I buy it, but an NbER paper is cited.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/06/30/black-lives-matter-protests-did-not-cause-an-uptick-in-covid-19-cases

BC

BC, don't your facts get in the way of your partisan talking points. 

Thanks for sharing this. I only experienced the protests firsthand in SF (and not as an intentional protestor but as an inadvertent attendee as I whizzed by a converging mass of protesters while cycling), and I was really impressed by how probably 95% of the people I saw had masks on and were making at least a marginal effort to social distance beyond the people they had come with.  Then again, SF has been really good on mask compliance in general, so this may have more to do with the SF than with the protests...


RE: Commentary on the Surge of Infections - Mick - 07-01-2020

I've been thinking about the dramatic upswing in American infections lately.  Yesterday, my wife was out shopping and encountered the following incidents:

1) Mrs. Mick is at a dog specialty store.  She sees a friend that we used to socialize with heavily about 6-8 years ago.  This friend is the emblematic Karen (entitled white lady) and you can't have a discussion with her because hers is the only opinion that matters, regardless of the authority or the experience of the individual with which she is speaking.  Her occupation?  For years, she's been hairdresser to Silicon Valley's glitterati.  Since her shop closed, she now makes house calls, many of them each day.  I assume it's only a matter of time until she gets infected.

2) Mrs. Mick stops by Whole Foods, and is in the checkout line, faithfully social distancing.  The adjacent counter is the customer relations counter.  A WF employee is standing uncomfortably close to Mrs. Mick.  He isn't anywhere near the CR counter, though he's clearly waiting for CR assistance.  He could stand on the designated spot for the CR line; instead, he stands in between the CR counter and the checkout counter, blissfully avoiding any social distancing.  The WF clerk behind the corner asks Mrs. Mick to move forward, and when she declines to move forward in the line, because of social distancing, the clerk scolds...Mrs. Mick.  Not the WF employee who won't get out of Mrs. Mick's way and will be standing two feet away from her.  The clerk barks at my wife who's trying to be socially responsible.  Guess Whole Foods employees don't give two sxxts about following their own social distancing rules, posted everywhere in their store.


RE: Commentary on the Surge of Infections - ChicagoCard - 07-01-2020

All of which is to say that Johan Giesecke was more or less right when he rhetorically asked: Sure you can lock down and effectively suppress the virus, but for how long? Sure there are lots of idiots and irresponsibles but that should have been expected, not least in our siloed and polarized society.


RE: Commentary on the Surge of Infections - lex24 - 07-01-2020

Its counterintuitive to believe that large gathering of people in close proximity for long periods of time, many who were shouting, is not a contributing factor.  Not THE contributing factor but A contributing factor. After all, social distancing has been THE mantra for months.

And frankly, any study on this, imo, is likely to be skewed by politics.  Either way.


RE: Commentary on the Surge of Infections - BostonCard - 07-01-2020

(07-01-2020, 10:37 AM)lex24 Wrote:  Its counterintuitive to believe that large gathering of people in close proximity for long periods of time, many who were shouting, is not a contributing factor.  And frankly, any study on this is, imo, is likely to be skewed by politics.  Either way.

Their point was that the “large gathering of people in close proximity for long periods of time” kept an even larger group of people from going outside, and in so doing the net effect was less viral transmission.  Again, I’m not sure I buy it, but the argument is not that that the protests didn’t facilitate transmission among people who were protesting, but rather that this effect was outweighed by the effect on people who didn’t participate in the protests and stayed home as a result.  Based on surveys, fewer than 1% of people participated in protests, and that is much less than the number of people who would have been venturing out electively for other activities.

BC


RE: Commentary on the Surge of Infections - ChicagoCard - 07-01-2020

(07-01-2020, 10:43 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  
(07-01-2020, 10:37 AM)lex24 Wrote:  Its counterintuitive to believe that large gathering of people in close proximity for long periods of time, many who were shouting, is not a contributing factor.  And frankly, any study on this is, imo, is likely to be skewed by politics.  Either way.

Their point was that the “large gathering of people in close proximity for long periods of time” kept an even larger group of people from going outside, and in so doing the net effect was less viral transmission.  Again, I’m not sure I buy it, but the argument is not that that the protests didn’t facilitate transmission among people who were protesting, but rather that this effect was outweighed by the effect on people who didn’t participate in the protests and stayed home as a result.  Based on surveys, fewer than 1% of people participated in protests, and that is much less than the number of people who would have been venturing out electively for other activities.

BC

That "logic" seems to have an element of cherry picking in it.


RE: Commentary on the Surge of Infections - lex24 - 07-01-2020

(07-01-2020, 10:43 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  
(07-01-2020, 10:37 AM)lex24 Wrote:  Its counterintuitive to believe that large gathering of people in close proximity for long periods of time, many who were shouting, is not a contributing factor.  And frankly, any study on this is, imo, is likely to be skewed by politics.  Either way.

Their point was that the “large gathering of people in close proximity for long periods of time” kept an even larger group of people from going outside, and in so doing the net effect was less viral transmission.  Again, I’m not sure I buy it, but the argument is not that that the protests didn’t facilitate transmission among people who were protesting, but rather that this effect was outweighed by the effect on people who didn’t participate in the protests and stayed home as a result.  Based on surveys, fewer than 1% of people participated in protests, and that is much less than the number of people who would have been venturing out electively for other activities.

BC

I find the argument absurd, quite frankly.  But I’m not surprised.  There is a “need” to find little or no “culpability” among the protestors. It is the politically correct thing to do. 

 One of my favorite County Orders was Conta Costa.  I forget the exact date, perhaps June 5.   The Health Czar came out in the Order and said it was ok to have outdoor protests up to 100 people.  (As if the protestors needed the Czar’s blessing.)  And what if you were no 101.) At the same time, however, Contra Costa was banning outdoor religious gatherings - of any number. I remember thinking if I was leading a religious group I’d announce my outdoor upcoming protest service - wear a mask. Services were allowed outdoors I believe 2 weeks later.


RE: Commentary on the Surge of Infections - BostonCard - 07-01-2020

Here’s the NBER paper.

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

The authors measured a net increase in hours at home after the onset of the protests, and the effect was larger in areas where the protests turned violent.


Quote: Event-study analyses provide strong evidence that net stay-at-home behavior increased following protest onset, consistent with the hypothesis that non-protesters’ behavior was substantially affected by urban protests. This effect was not fully explained by the imposition of city curfews. Estimated effects were generally larger for persistent protests and those accompanied by media reports of violence.

Note, as a public health intervention, I would think violent protests would not be my preferred policy tool. I mean, a posse of social distancing vigilantes might also work in much the same way (it did in China), but I wouldn’t support that. And of course, this analysis doesn’t rule out transmission among protesters. But that effect appears to be small to the extent that it reduced the amount of time that the rest of the population spent outside of their house (0.2 hrs, on average) and the effect of that on transmission. Since only about 1% of the population participated in a protest, the finding seems at least plausible to me.

BC