As @pkaib01 mentioned, calculating viral spread using a cumulative denominator makes little sense. And yes, it is certainly a matter of cherry picking. The statistic you employ will logically diminish over time. You are employing a statistic that fits your narrative and is invalid. That's the very definition of cherry-picking.
Digging into the paper, the most interesting finding in the paper is that a county that sent many people to Sturgis would experience about a 10.7% increase in Covid cases compared to a county that didn't send anybody to Sturgis. That accounts for the fact that people going to Sturgis are likely not behaviorally similar to the people not going to Sturgis and would likely have engaged in behavior more likely to cause spread even if Sturgis didn't happen.
Yes, false claims. They didn't claim that Sturgis caused a 19.7% increase overall from some sort of a stable baseline, the only reason than an overall decline would matter in this discussion. So you read it before you called it BS? I have been reading it. I'd be happy to discuss their differences-in-differences methodology now. So what are your issues with that methodology?
So 20% of ALL cases were from Sturgis? Yeah, calling BS on it. Read the 63 page report this afternoon. Digging into their numbers some more to goof on the crazy 12.2 billion costs claim as well. If you this "report" doesn't raise your BS meter than you are either extremely partisan or extremely gullible.
Obviously media-driven scare tactics from the coronabros with the intent to tarnish Trump's carefully calculated response to the virus. Oh wait, Austria? . . . nevermind
“Europe’s got it all figured out and my friends there can’t believe we can’t control the virus”. Oh wait. Nevermind.
I wonder if they held bike rallies in places like Germany (112 fatalities/million), New Zealand (5 fatalities/million), and Taiwan (0.3 fatalities/million). FTR, the U.S. stands at 585 fatalities/million.
Absolute nonsense and I’m pretty sure that you know it. The reasons given for the shutdown were that with exponential spread the hospital systems would be overrun and millions would die( remember those projections?). My contentention has always been that COVID didn’t, wasn’t going to, and never will spread exponentially, at least symptomatically. My numbers prove that, while simultaneously showing that the economic damage done to the masses far outweighs the damage that COVID did to the vulnerable. The monthly average of the daily 10 day rolling average case growth for May was 1.90%. June was 1.22%. July was 1.77% August was 1.01%. September is still early but long enough to take into account many if not most school openings and it is .67%. These are not even in the same universe as exponential growth. Again, just look at how many people without preexisting health conditions even went to a hospital, much less got seriously ill or died. With today’s numbers so far looking like they are going to end up somewhere in the 25K cases/500 deaths range it is time for the COVID crowd to come to terms with the fact that you were seriously duped by a media and Democratic Party induced panic that was instigated to hurt one politician, while benefitting another, while crushing millions of regular citizens. Or you are dangerously gullible. You can cherry pick minutia to try and hold on to your narrative if you like, but the cumulative data is what we should and always should have been looking at, at it is not helping you all at all. The case numbers and deaths on a daily, weekly, or rolling average basis are dropping like rocks.
Oh, so you didn't read it but decided, based on topline numbers that you didn't like, that wasn't even the focus of the paper, that it was "BS?"
Covid has an R0 of 2.2. That is exponential spread. You are taking the numbers with shutdowns and restrictions and acting like they are the spread rate of the disease without heavy mitigation implemented.
I did read it. Maybe your reading comprehension needs some work. Posted an hour ago that I read it. But before I read it my BS meter went off. And i question anyone’s intellect who’s BS meter didn’t go off on that study.
So what methodological or data problem do you have with it? BTW, maybe your reading comprehension needs some work. You just said that you knew it was BS before you read it, which fits exactly what I said. You didn't read it and declared it BS. You then later read it, but haven't provided any issues with it from your reading of it yet.
It had a projected R0 of 2.2. The cumulative numbers to date include the periods with shutdowns lifted where the numbers have and still are declining. Additionally, as you and many other libs on this board like to pontificate about, they also include ALL of those foolish, ignorant, and self centered Americans from the Basket of Deplorables who have resisted towing the line that they were told that they had to so their parents and grandparents wouldn’t die.
Very few locations are not operating with restrictions. Very few areas engaged in a full shutdown at any point. The restrictions have generally been eased, but have not generally been removed fully. Also, aggregate level data from around the country is not useful for observing the effects of lessening these restrictions.
A planet where faith, reason, logic, and common sense overrule my emotions and guide me through every facet of life. It has worked quite well for me. I would welcome the opportunity to show you the place if you would like.
Don’t need to read something for my BS meter to go off. Maybe you need to look up what that means. Google is your friend.
