Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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.

2

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?

2