What the COVID Cult won't tell you

**Poor Richard Saunders** · 03-06-2021, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by The Anonymous

Did NFL and NCAA football games with limited in-person attendance cause a substantial increase in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases in the U.S. counties where the games were held?

A time-series, cross-sectional study of U.S. counties with NFL and NCAA football games used matching and difference-in-differences design to estimate the effect of games with limited in-person attendance on county-level COVID-19 spread.

The study did not find an increase in county-level COVID-19 cases per 100,000 residents due to NFL and NCAA football games held with limited in-person attendance.

SCIENCE™!

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.15.21251745v1

No. It isn't science yet. From your link:

This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed

I am curious how the managed to find 200 NFL games that allowed fans. Are they counting the games where teams allow 250 family members?

256 games in 2020 season - 32 teams,
Teams that did not allow fans as of week 15 - (I stopped counting before I checked the rest.)
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...-fans-stadiums
SF, LAC, LAR, CH, MN, NYJ, NYG, GB

**Poor Richard Saunders** · 03-06-2021, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by The Anonymous

SCIENCE™ is my response!

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.15.21251745v1

This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.

You really need to learn what science is.

**The Anonymous** · 03-06-2021, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders

I am curious how the managed to find 200 NFL games that allowed fans. Are they counting the games where teams allow 250 family members?

Learn to read, maybe.

Originally Posted by The Anonymous

A time-series, cross-sectional study of U.S. counties with NFL and NCAA football games used matching and difference-in-differences design to estimate the effect of games with limited in-person attendance on county-level COVID-19 spread.

**jet57** · 03-06-2021, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by Micawber

By covid cult you ae referring to 99% of people, right?

Yeah, the ones who can read.

**jet57** · 03-06-2021, 07:42 PM

Originally Posted by The Anonymous

Did NFL and NCAA football games with limited in-person attendance cause a substantial increase in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases in the U.S. counties where the games were held?

A time-series, cross-sectional study of U.S. counties with NFL and NCAA football games used matching and difference-in-differences design to estimate the effect of games with limited in-person attendance on county-level COVID-19 spread.

The study did not find an increase in county-level COVID-19 cases per 100,000 residents due to NFL and NCAA football games held with limited in-person attendance.

SCIENCE™!

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.15.21251745v1

Well, that's because of the distancing and mask wearing that takes place. The Giants are going to be able to have 10,000 this season as well. Texas and M ississippi are going to be something to watch.

**The Anonymous** · 03-06-2021, 07:46 PM

Originally Posted by jet57

Well, that's because of the distancing and mask wearing that takes place.

Who told you that?

**jet57** · 03-06-2021, 07:46 PM

Originally Posted by The Anonymous

Who told you that?

The TV cameras and the rules for attendance.

**The Anonymous** · 03-06-2021, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by jet57

The TV cameras and the rules for attendance.

Is that so?

**jet57** · 03-06-2021, 07:50 PM

Originally Posted by The Anonymous

Is that so?

So you go on about sports but you don't watch them?

**The Anonymous** · 03-06-2021, 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by jet57

So you go on about sports but you don't watch them?

Is your anecdotal account supposed to be SCIENCE™?

**The Anonymous** · 03-06-2021, 07:59 PM

Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders

You really need to learn what science is.

You think preprints are not SCIENCE™?

**jet57** · 03-06-2021, 10:41 PM

Originally Posted by The Anonymous

Is your anecdotal account supposed to be SCIENCE™?

No, it's just correct information. Are you a scientist?

**Poor Richard Saunders** · 03-07-2021, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by The Anonymous

Learn to read, maybe.

I went back and read the study. It seems the did count the games where 250 family members were allowed as games with fans.

Extracted data included game dates, in-person attendance (yes/no), and the stadiums where the games were held.

But the real problem with the study is they looked at the county where the game was held while comparing it to other counties of similar size.
They don't mention the counties they compare to but the Dallas Cowboys play in Tarrant County. I highly doubt that all of those that attended the game came from Tarrant County since it's population is only 25% of the Dallas metro area. AT&T stadium is only about a mile from the Dallas county line. Dallas County is larger than Tarrant County. The first question for any peer reviewer is did they make reasonable assumptions when choosing their data. I would say they didn't.

**Poor Richard Saunders** · 03-07-2021, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by The Anonymous

You think preprints are not SCIENCE™?

Science isn't just one person doing something and telling everyone else they did it. Science is a process of others looking at the work and agreeing that the process was correct and is repeatable. If you think a preprint that isn't peer reviewed is science then you should read the paper I wrote on how to build a perpetual motion machine. It hasn't been reviewed but according to you it would be science.