Stanford study estimates Trump rallies have led to 30,000 cases, 700 deaths

[dabigv13]

From B. Douglas Bernheim in the Department of Economics. Notably this is only from June 20 to September 22.

We investigate the effects of large group meetings on the spread of COVID-19 by studying
the impact of eighteen Trump campaign rallies. To capture the effects of subsequent contagion
within the pertinent communities, our analysis encompasses up to ten post-rally weeks for each
event. Our method is based on a collection of regression models, one for each event, that
capture the relationships between post-event outcomes and pre-event characteristics, including
demographics and the trajectory of COVID-19 cases, in similar counties. We explore a total
of 24 procedures for identifying sets of matched counties. For the vast majority of these
variants, our estimate of the average treatment effect across the eighteen events implies that
they increased subsequent confirmed cases of COVID-19 by more than 250 per 100,000 residents.
Extrapolating this figure to the entire sample, we conclude that these eighteen rallies ultimately
resulted in more than 30,000 incremental confirmed cases of COVID-19. Applying county-
specific post-event death rates, we conclude that the rallies likely led to more than 700 deaths
(not necessarily among attendees).

https://t.co/kwqQ8R5mVW?amp=1

[lex24]

And yet 25 Million people protesting, with as many as 500,000 in a crowd did not.  I want Trump to lose.  But if you don’t think politics plays a role in these studies, I have some swamp land to sell you.

BTW - these aren’t science. They are extrapolalating from statistics. And statistics are easily manipulated. I mean c’mon, that these people were at rallies means lesser crowds at bars and tattoo parlors. Right? Lesser crowds mean less spread.....

Or maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the virus can distinguish “good” crowds from “bad” crowds.

And, of course, the media is running with it. Reported on CNBC, Yahoo etc.... Again, I want Trump to lose. Call me a Lincoln Republican (officially I’m an independent). Been a while since I voted for a Dem for a Pres. ‘92 to be exact. I voted for Kasich in 16. Somewhat of a cop out, I fully admit. But it’s Calif, so I knew the outcome. And I couldn’t vote for either in ‘16. I can vote for Biden. And hope he’s the center to slightly left guy he historically has been. At least he’s a good human being.

When Trump got the GOP nomination in ‘16, I said to anyone who’d listen to me that were Trump supporters that his “legacy” should he win will be ultimately to drive the country left. Because we are essentially a reactive electorate. And I think I’m correct on that. Trump is the best thing that’s happened to the left since Nixon/Watergate. Probably even better.

I also want to see a semblance of journalistic integrity again. There has been very little the last couple years. You have most of the major media openly leading the charge for Biden (or more specifically, against Trump). CNN has become a joke. Fox, of course, does the opposite. Internet sites are worse. With no journalistic standards to begin with and the giants running the show deciding what can or should be highlighted, or repressed. This is not good for the country. Because it spurs further division. How that gets “resolved” in this age of internet dominance and social media is beyond me.

[JustAnotherFan]

And yet 25 Million people protesting, with as many as 500,000 in a crowd did not.  I want Trump to lose.  But if you don’t think politics plays a role in these studies, I have some swamp land to sell you.

BTW - these aren’t science.  They are extrapolalating from statistics.  And statistics are easily manipulated.  I mean c’mon, that these people were at rallies means lesser crowds at bars and tattoo parlors. Right?  Lesser crowds mean less spread..... Damn those ugly undesirables. 

Or maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the virus can distinguish “good” crowds from “bad” crowds.

And, of course, the media is running with it.  Reported on CNBC, Yahoo etc....

Right. And the behavior of those cheering on authoritarianism was exactly the same as those demanding human rights. I mean, there was no difference in the use of masks, for example.

[Genuine Realist]

You can't approach these issues from a good/evil perspective, though God knows people try.

[lex24]

And yet 25 Million people protesting, with as many as 500,000 in a crowd did not.  I want Trump to lose.  But if you don’t think politics plays a role in these studies, I have some swamp land to sell you.

BTW - these aren’t science.  They are extrapolalating from statistics.  And statistics are easily manipulated.  I mean c’mon, that these people were at rallies means lesser crowds at bars and tattoo parlors. Right?  Lesser crowds mean less spread..... Damn those ugly undesirables. 

Or maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the virus can distinguish “good” crowds from “bad” crowds.

And, of course, the media is running with it.  Reported on CNBC, Yahoo etc....

Right. And the behavior of those cheering on authoritarianism was exactly the same as those demanding human rights. I mean, there was no difference in the use of masks, for example.

Not where I’m coming from and you know it.  I’m not now nor have I ever criticized the “behavior” relating to peaceful protests.  Or the fact that they happened.  The protests were inevitable and justified. (But the “behaviors” were probably quite similar - cheering, chanting, yelling in tight spaces without social distancing. The two differences are a higher percentage of masking in the protests. And I suspect longer time together in the protests (although I’m unsure on that).)

The  virus doesn’t give a damn on the why. And while masks help some they certainly aren’t a panacea.  Further, there were obviously large numbers of unmasked people in the protests.  Hell, if 90% wore masks in a crowd of 500,000, (which I find to be unlikely) that still leaves 50,000 unmasked. And that was just one protest. The sheer numbers and common sense lead to “the implication” that this contributed to the spread.

[dabigv13]

So this was a dumb and predictable tangent. Fact is Trump is our President and he is making the decision to hold rallies that he should reasonably know are unsafe and leading to sickness and death.

You can make a separate thread to complain about protests because they really have nothing to do with President Trump holding superspreader rallies.

[lex24]

So this was a dumb and predictable tangent. Fact is Trump is our President and he is making the decision to hold rallies that he should reasonably know are unsafe and leading to sickness and death.

You can make a separate thread to complain about protests because they really have nothing to do with President Trump holding superspreader rallies.

Thanks.  I appreciate you telling me what I can do.  I wasn’t complaining about the protests.  Period. I was pointing out the politics behind this shitshow. Which people do all the time on this board. And as long as it’s the slant that those want, it’s fine. But a different slant and you get people telling you what you can do. Or the thread gets shut down.Im done on this. Blast me as you please.

[dabigv13]

You can find scientific articles on how the protests affected covid spread. There are several. Post a thread and we'll talk about it. Otherwise it is just irrelevant and unserious whataboutism to bring up.

The virus is our common enemy but the leader and his followers would prefer a different false reality.

[DocSavage87]

Or maybe I’m wrong.

This may be the only line I heartily agree with you on most of your posts.  As others have pointed out, Trump has full control of the way his rallies conduct business and it's been a sh*tshow in each and every one of them.  Just the fact they mandate people wear masks behind him, where cameras point, and cares less about all the others off-camera show where his priorities are.

I'd also rather have less gatherings, period, but there's a big difference between static positions for hours between people not wearing masks, shouting and cheering, even when outside, and much more movement in marches with larger % of masked.  And if you had a study trying to pinpoint case rises from these protest events, I wouldn't be as reflexively dismissive because you're trying your very best to spin the unspinnable. I particularly like your rationalization that the people at rallies would be at bars and tattoo parlors otherwise. (See the previous discussion on k variable, size of crowds/duration, etc.) I'm sure the seniors that went to the hospital in Omaha rally were bar hoppers. And even if they were at bars, it'd likely be *local* bars and not events drawing people from a much wider area that rally goers then return to afterwards.

[lex24]

Or maybe I’m wrong.

This may be the only line I heartily agree with you on most of your posts.  As others have pointed out, Trump has full control of the way his rallies conduct business and it's been a sh*tshow in each and every one of them.  Just the fact they mandate people wear masks behind him, where cameras point, and cares less about all the others off-camera show where his priorities are.

I'd also rather have less gatherings, period, but there's a big difference between static positions for hours between people not wearing masks, shouting and cheering, even when outside, and much more movement in marches with larger % of masked.  And if you had a study trying to pinpoint case rises from these protest events, I wouldn't be as reflexively dismissive because you're trying your very best to spin the unspinnable.  I particularly like your rationalization that the people at rallies would be at bars and tattoo parlors otherwise.  (See the previous discussion on k variable, size of crowds/duration, etc.)  I'm sure the seniors that went to the hospital in Omaha rally were bar hoppers.  And even if they were at bars, it'd likely be *local* bars and not events drawing people from a much wider area that rally goers then return to afterwards.

I lied. :) Let me respond. 

That wasn’t a rationalization it was sarcasm. Doesn’t play well. 

I’m as nervous as everyone else about this election.  And frankly this little board is one of the few places I know of that I can engage in at least quasi civil discourse. I know most of you disagree with me.  But you do so with decorum. Which I appreciate.  I happen to believe disagreement civilly discussed is a positive thing. And, unfortunately, a rapidly disappearing “skill.”  (On that front, my apology to dabivd for my snarky reply to his response).

Let’s hope that somehow we get through the next few weeks as peacefully as possible. I think that is something we can all agree on.

[oregontim]

And yet 25 Million people protesting, with as many as 500,000 in a crowd did not.  I want Trump to lose.  But if you don’t think politics plays a role in these studies, I have some swamp land to sell you. ...

I also want to see a semblance of journalistic integrity again.  There has been very little the last couple years. You have most of the major media openly leading the charge for Biden (or more specifically, against Trump). CNN has become a joke.  Fox, of course, does the opposite.  Internet sites are worse.  With no journalistic standards to begin with and the giants running the show deciding what can or should be highlighted, or repressed.  This is not good for the country.  Because it spurs further division.  How that gets “resolved” in this age of internet dominance and social media is beyond me.

Lex, you make an interesting point here, IMO. It dives into what's "news." Dog bites man vs. man bites dog. When the President of the United States scoffs medical advice and endangers crowds, that's more remarkable than when a random crowd does it.
Regarding the larger statement of media bias, IMO, this President of the United States has behaved in ways that make accurate reporting look like bias. I could hang pages of bullet points on this simple statement. On the specific issue of Covid, to go no further, we have his war on caution, undermining CDC and FDA, etc.
In the end, the lies of a President of the United States, like the gaffes of a President of the United States, and the crimes of a President of the United States, are more news than anybody else. Like it or not.

BTW - these aren’t science.  They are extrapolating from statistics.  And statistics are easily manipulated.  I mean c’mon, that these people were at rallies means lesser crowds at bars and tattoo parlors. Right?  Lesser crowds mean less spread.....

A valid point, IMO. We could also dive into the likely convergence of behaviors, in that people at Trump rallies are probably more likely to also be people who scoff at masks and distancing. Statistics are so often subject to the details of random or not with the assumed whole population.

When Trump got the GOP nomination in ‘16, I said to anyone who’d listen to me that were Trump supporters that his “legacy” should he win will be ultimately to drive the country left.  Because we are essentially a reactive electorate.  And I think I’m correct  on that.  Trump is the best thing that’s happened to the left since Nixon/Watergate.  Probably even better.

And this is a fascinating point. Too soon to tell, of course; but I can hope. If they do win, I'd like to see the Dems be true to Biden's promise and halt the pendulum of tyranny of majority party. They could start with a unifying national plan to deal with Covid with best practices of safety that could also lead to eventually better control of the pandemic and easier opening of the closed parts of the economy. And then enact legislation to codify more safeguards against either party overpowering checks and balances in the future. Tighten up the judicial nomination process, codify transparency with tax statements, investments in blind trust, subpoena powers, Hatch Act, emoluments clause, etc.

[Genuine Realist]

Or maybe I’m wrong.

This may be the only line I heartily agrte,]ee with you on most of your posts.  As others have pointed out, Trump has full control of the way his rallies conduct business and it's been a sh*tshow in each and every one of them.  Just the fact they mandate people wear masks behind him, where cameras point, and cares less about all the others off-camera show where his priorities are.

I'd also rather have less gatherings, period, but there's a big difference between static positions for hours between people not wearing masks, shouting and cheering, even when outside, and much more movement in marches with larger % of masked.  And if you had a study trying to pinpoint case rises from these protest events, I wouldn't be as reflexively dismissive because you're trying your very best to spin the unspinnable.  I particularly like your rationalization that the people at rallies would be at bars and tattoo parlors otherwise.  (See the previous discussion on k variable, size of crowds/duration, etc.)  I'm sure the seniors that went to the hospital in Omaha rally were bar hoppers.  And even if they were at bars, it'd likely be *local* bars and not events drawing people from a much wider area that rally goers then return to afterwards.

Epic rationalizations. The protests - actually the better word for 'largely peaceful'protests is 'riot'- are just another form of rally. There's a lot of standing in place. 

In any case, no one has tried to quantify the covid risk and spread. No academic would dare.

[oregontim]

The protests - actually the better word for 'largely peaceful'protests is 'riot'- are just another form of rally.

What a shame you added  "the better word for largely peaceful protests is riot" to an otherwise valid comment. To equate peaceful protest to riot is wrong, factually; and politically loaded, in terms of civil discourse.

Trump and his enablers are purposely trying to push this alternate truth on their cult followers. The rest of the world, however, with ample video evidence, differentiates between the non-violent protests, usually happening during the day, and the violent riots, usually during the night. Different people are responsible for each.

And, contrary to the propaganda of the Trump reelection campaign, some (not all, maybe even not most; but some) of the rioting has been by police and by right-wing groups supporting Trump. Which doesn't change my point above, but is relevant because of context. In these very troubled times, repeating talking points as if they were fact, innocent mistake or not, reads like part of an organized campaign.

[DocSavage87]

Or maybe I’m wrong.

This may be the only line I heartily agrte,]ee with you on most of your posts.  As others have pointed out, Trump has full control of the way his rallies conduct business and it's been a sh*tshow in each and every one of them.  Just the fact they mandate people wear masks behind him, where cameras point, and cares less about all the others off-camera show where his priorities are.

I'd also rather have less gatherings, period, but there's a big difference between static positions for hours between people not wearing masks, shouting and cheering, even when outside, and much more movement in marches with larger % of masked.  And if you had a study trying to pinpoint case rises from these protest events, I wouldn't be as reflexively dismissive because you're trying your very best to spin the unspinnable.  I particularly like your rationalization that the people at rallies would be at bars and tattoo parlors otherwise.  (See the previous discussion on k variable, size of crowds/duration, etc.)  I'm sure the seniors that went to the hospital in Omaha rally were bar hoppers.  And even if they were at bars, it'd likely be *local* bars and not events drawing people from a much wider area that rally goers then return to afterwards.

Epic rationalizations. The protests - actually the better word for 'largely peaceful'protests is 'riot'- are just another form of rally. There's a lot of standing in place. 

In any case, no one has tried to quantify the covid risk and spread. No academic would dare.

To bad you didn't read what I actually said: static hours-long gatherings vs marches.  I don't disagree that the former is a danger regardless of the reason.  Don't let actual words interfere with your tripe, though. Frankly, I couldn't care less what you think. I've added you and a couple others to an ignore list that unfortunately doesn't allow my posts to be hidden from you like Twitter blocks. I'm here to get medical information from other informed docs. That's it.

[OutsiderFan]

I'm curious if this thread would have catalyzed the same reactions if the events studied were I don't know, biker rallies, instead of POTUS campaign events.

The fact the POTUS is akin to a serial killer has nothing to do with how the virus spreads and multiplies as a result of congregate gatherings.  I appreciate the research, but isn't it somewhat like launching a study to determine what happens when dry brush is set on fire on a hot and windy day?

IOW, how does it help to know super spreader events are super spreader events?  We've learned a lot over the last 10 months about how Covid-19 spreads. Part of that is knowing spread events (defined as more than 100 people getting together with no distancing and mask wearing) lead to more case growth, which leads to more sick people, which leads to more hospitalizations, which leads to more deaths and long-term damage.

[Genuine Realist]

The protests - actually the better word for 'largely peaceful'protests is 'riot'- are just another form of rally.

What a shame you added  "the better word for largely peaceful protests is riot" to an otherwise valid comment. To equate peaceful protest to riot is wrong, factually; and politically loaded, in terms of civil discourse.

Trump and his enablers are purposely trying to push this alternate truth on their cult followers. The rest of the world, however, with ample video evidence, differentiates between the non-violent protests, usually happening during the day, and the violent riots, usually during the night. Different people are responsible for each.

And, contrary to the propaganda of the Trump reelection campaign, some (not all, maybe even not most; but some) of the rioting has been by police and by right-wing groups supporting Trump. Which doesn't change my point above, but is relevant because of context. In these very troubled times, repeating talking points as if they were fact, innocent mistake or not, reads like part of an organized campaign

---

[quote="lex24" pid='294910' dateline='1604164167']
Or maybe I’m wrong.

This may be the only line I heartily agrte,]ee with you on most of your posts.  As others have pointed out, Trump has full control of the way his rallies conduct business and it's been a sh*tshow in each and every one of them.  Just the fact they mandate people wear masks behind him, where cameras point, and cares less about all the others off-camera show where his priorities are.

I'd also rather have less gatherings, period, but there's a big difference between static positions for hours between people not wearing masks, shouting and cheering, even when outside, and much more movement in marches with larger % of masked.  And if you had a study trying to pinpoint case rises from these protest events, I wouldn't be as reflexively dismissive because you're trying your very best to spin the unspinnable.  I particularly like your rationalization that the people at rallies would be at bars and tattoo parlors otherwise.  (See the previous discussion on k variable, size of crowds/duration, etc.)  I'm sure the seniors that went to the hospital in Omaha rally were bar hoppers.  And even if they were at bars, it'd likely be *local* bars and not events drawing people from a much wider area that rally goers then return to afterwards.

Epic rationalizations. The protests - actually the better word for 'largely peaceful'protests is 'riot'- are just another form of rally. There's a lot of standing in place. 

In any case, no one has tried to quantify the covid risk and spread. No academic would dare.

To bad you didn't read what I actually said: static hours-long gatherings vs marches.  I don't disagree that the former is a danger regardless of the reason.  Don't let actual words interfere with your tripe, though.  Frankly, I couldn't care less what you think.  I've added you and a couple others to an ignore list that unfortunately doesn't allow my posts to be hidden from you like Twitter blocks.  I'm here to get medical information from other informed docs.  That's it.

Another Christmas card I won't be getting. 

Ah, well, my heart is breaking, but I think I'll live.

---

The protests - actually the better word for 'largely peaceful'protests is 'riot'- are just another form of rally.

What a shame you added  "the better word for largely peaceful protests is riot" to an otherwise valid comment. To equate peaceful protest to riot is wrong, factually; and politically loaded, in terms of civil discourse.

Trump and his enablers are purposely trying to push this alternate truth on their cult followers. The rest of the world, however, with ample video evidence, differentiates between the non-violent protests, usually happening during the day, and the violent riots, usually during the night. Different people are responsible for each.

And, contrary to the propaganda of the Trump reelection campaign, some (not all, maybe even not most; but some) of the rioting has been by police and by right-wing groups supporting Trump. Which doesn't change my point above, but is relevant because of context. In these very troubled times, repeating talking points as if they were fact, innocent mistake or not, reads like part of an organized campaign.

I didn't write anything concerning the political dlant of these events, Right or Left.

That said, :'LARGELY peaceful protests' is the latest euphemism. The operative word is the adjective. Most, if not all, riots (sic) consist of a minority of violent actors and a much larger number of supportive onlookers. 

Peaceful protests' are just that. No need for quantifying modifiers.

[akiddoc]

BTW - these aren’t science.  They are extrapolalating from statistics.  And statistics are easily manipulated.  I mean c’mon, that these people were at rallies means lesser crowds at bars and tattoo parlors. Right?  Lesser crowds mean less spread.....

Actually, all science is basically extrapolating from statistics. When an experiment reveals a result, you generally see a statistical evaluation of that result to determine its validity.

[oldalum]

Actually, all science is basically extrapolating from statistics. When an experiment reveals a result, you generally see a statistical evaluation of that result to determine its validity.

I would put it differently as follows:

Actually, much of science is based on statistics. When an experiment reveals a result, you generally see a statistical evaluation of that result to determine the likelihood of its validity.