By now you've likely seen the story that the Sturgis, SD motorcycle rally last month resulted in more than 250,000 new COVID-19 cases across the country. Any person with an ounce of critical thinking skills and intellectual honesty had to know that didn't quite pass the proverbial sniff test.
So what was the real impact of a gathering with approximately half a million cyclists practicing little to no social distancing and rare mask usage?
According to South Dakota health officials, 124 new cases in the state—including one fatal case—were directly linked to the rally. Overall, COVID-19 cases linked to the Sturgis rally were reported in 11 states as of September 2, to a tune of at least 260 new cases, according to The Washington Post.
There very well may be more cases that have been linked to the early August event, but so far, that's only 260 confirmed cases—about 0.1 percent of the number the IZA paper offers.
To get to the astronomical number of cases allegedly spread because of the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally, the researchers analyzed "anonymized cellphone data to track the smartphone pings from non-residents and movement of those before and after the event," notes Newsweek. "The study then linked those who attended and traveled back to their home states, and compared changes in coronavirus trends after the rally's conclusion."
Essentially, the researchers assumed that new spikes in cases in areas where people went post-rally must have been caused by those rally attendees, despite there being no particular evidence that this was the case. The paper, which has not been peer-reviewed, failed to account for simultaneous happenings—like schools in South Dakota reopening, among other things—that could have contributed to coronavirus spread in some of the studied areas.
The researchers also assumed a $46,000 price tag for each person infected to calculate the $12.2 billion public health cost of the event—but this figure would only make sense if every person had a severe case requiring hospitalization.
The results of the IZA paper "do not align with what we know," South Dakota epidemiologist Joshua Clayton said at a Tuesday news briefing. The IZA paper "isn't science; it's fiction," Gov. Kristi Noem (R) said.
It's also good election-time propaganda, apparently. Despite the dubious nature of the IZA study, a range of Democratic consultants and cheerleaders have been using it to condemn President Donald Trump.
An therein lies the true motivation for releasing a report based mostly on statistical possibility as opposed to science-based probability.
What's perhaps most amusing is the proggie woke scolds who lecture others about needing to "TRUST THE SCIENCE!!!" were the biggest culprits in trafficking this scientifically dubious assertion that Sturgis was a "super spreader" event. Amazing how similar concerns weren't raised regarding mass protests over social justice. Why it's almost as if this COVID-19 saga isn't based 100% on science. Perish the thought!
------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment