bkydx t1_ixv2tdj wrote
Reply to comment by IT_GUY_23 in A study of NFL games during the 2020 season suggests a link between attendance and COVID spikes in surrounding counties 14 and 21 days later. The inferred connection held strongest for games attended by 20,000-plus fans by Wagamaga
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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments