Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

MasterPayne611 t1_ixuegf6 wrote

So. .... how about also studying spread rates from protests and riots held during the height of the pandemic when the lockdiwns were in place. But I guess that doesn't further the agenda

−37

brian_sahn t1_ixufyl7 wrote

This sub is about science, not politics. That said, here’s your study. It took me all of 3 seconds to find that using google. If you want people to listen to you and take you seriously, it helps to actually know what you’re talking about.

23

[deleted] t1_ixwlx2m wrote

[deleted]

−4

brian_sahn t1_ixwpt0h wrote

You’re making it political by assuming it is biased because the article is hosted on a website that ends in .gov. Let me know if you have any comments on the substance of the research, not what website it is hosted on.

And here, is this better?

3

[deleted] t1_ixwtnj0 wrote

[deleted]

−2

brian_sahn t1_ixwukkc wrote

It’s pretty clear you didn’t read mine or OPs study.

3

[deleted] t1_ixxp201 wrote

[deleted]

0

brian_sahn t1_ixy74u9 wrote

So your opinion on the matter isn’t confirmed by these studies so it must be the studies that are wrong, not your opinion? Is that what you’re saying? Can you specifically identify any part of the methodology that is flawed?

1

JackMitcham t1_ixuhvrk wrote

It has been studied. Incredulity is not an argument.

13