However, a quick review of the maps in Figure 1 identifies those counties as Clark, NV (Las Vegas), Maricopa, AZ (Phoenix) and Jefferson/Arapahoe/Weld, CO (Denver Metro). None of those counties' own data reporting seems to match up with this supposed spike in cases that the paper suggests, starting around Aug 21.
Clark and Maricopa are clearly heading downwards. The Denver Metro graphs are a little more vague, you could maybe suggest there has been an uptick in cases but you'd be hard-pressed to definitively say there is a "spike" that contrasts with the long-term trend.
I'm having some difficulty squaring the paper's case data with the county governments' own counts.
A purely asymptomatic infection is valued at $11,000
A symptomatic but non-hospitalized infection is valued at $33,000
If you are in the hospital for any reason with an infection, $512,000
If you are in the ICU for any reason with an infection, $1,100,000
If you are in the ICU on a ventilator, $2,900,000
Why? What convention would you use?
If you think these are estimates of related healthcare costs, you should probably re-read the paper.
I'm guessing there is some subtext here that an armchair analyst isn't going to catch from reading just this paper. Perhaps, for example, the cost of asymptomatic cases is there because "asymptomatic" doesn't actually mean "no symptoms at all", it means "the patient didn't subjectively feel ill enough to seek care." In which case there probably is some real cost to factor into the average. Or perhaps the argument is that asymptomatic cases still carry some risk of secondary effects such as myocarditis that absolutely need to be taken into account and averaged into the group from a public health perspective.
It's hard to say for sure, since the paper clearly isn't written for a non-expert audience and therefore doesn't spend much time on defining jargon.
Compare the experience of reading one of Einstein's scientific papers with the experience of listening to one of his interviews. It's almost like they're not even the same person.
The authors thoroughly outline their approach (and its limitations) based on available literature.
What specific criticism do you have?
When measuring economic impact, they could very well be equivalent. A dollar lost when someone can't work due to a broken bone is economically equivalent to a dollar lost when someone bedridden with a virus.
Best case, your comment is an oversimplification of what the authors spent a dozen or so pages explaining. The limitations they describe perhaps encompass some of your concern. They also describe alternative calculations.
"We first use the Department of Transportation (2016) guidance on value per statistical life (VSL) and severity/injury estimates as a basis for our non-fatal valuations by category. After updating the figures for earnings and inflation the DOT guidance recommends using a VSL of about $11 million in 2019 dollars. We use the severity classifications in the DOT guidance as a basis for our non-fatal valuations. DOT (2016) recommends using six different severity categories in benefit-cost analyses including Level 1 (minor), which corresponds to using a 0.3 percent amount of the VSL, Level 2 (moderate), which uses about a 5 percent amount,Level 3 (serious), which uses about a10 percent amount,Level 4 (severe), which uses about a 27 percent amount fraction,Level 5 (critical), which uses about a 59 percent amount,and Level 6 (unsurvivable) which uses a 100 percent amount(the full VSL). We therefore value asymptomatic cases at about $11,000 (in 2019 dollars) each which corresponds to using a 0.1 percent amount of the VSL in DOT (2016)."
0.1% of a statistical life is about a month? It's also a third of the "minor" classification.
How would you value it? $0? Clearly, that's not right. Less than $11,000? More?
 Consider a new infectious disease which has only minor symptoms immediately, but may have unknown health consequences in the future.
To the tune of tens of thousands of dollars on average? That's not plausible.
I bet that was fun.
"Using a synthetic control approach, ... [f]or the state of South Dakota as a whole we find that the Sturgis event increase COVID-19 cases by 3.6 to 3.9 cases per 1,000 population as of September 2nd 2020. This represents an increase of over 35 percent relative to the 9.7 cases per 1,000 population in South Dakota on July 31, 2020 (South Dakota Department of Health 2020)."
That's pretty substantial.
> The cellphone tracking data showed about 10% of Sturgis attendees hailed from within South Dakota, with about 19% from border states and 72% from across the rest of the country, with heavy attendance from Arizona, California, Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Washington and Wyoming.
I find this aspect far more upsetting than the stupidity of the event itself. It's one thing when a bunch of locals decide to congregate in an environment they really shouldn't be, but another thing entirely when it's 400,000 people biking across the country.
Ironically - or perhaps not - I saw an NPR article ~a week ago indicating the infection rate in Sturgis and its county, while certainly higher than it was before the rally, wasn't as catastrophic as you'd expect. Apparently, many people who live in Sturgis left town or just tried to avoid contact with anyone that weekend. Can't find any up to date information on whether the infection rate has increased since then with more time/testing, though.
They had zero mask restrictions for a while, and cases were low.
Then they opened restaurants and bars, which were flooded by thousands of Californians coming across the border every weekend and not taking any precautions and Arizona's ICUs quickly reached capacity.
"While many locals are grateful for the tourism dollars amid a global downturn, some are worried that the crowds could cause a rise in coronavirus cases locally and overwhelm the city’s only hospital, which has just 16 ICU beds for its 55,000 residents."
The article is dated May 11.
2822 excess mortality for Denmark in its flu season of 2017/2018. Extrapolating Denmarks population to Swedens population we would expect 5000 excess mortality for a comparable bad flu season. Current Sweden COVID related deaths are 5800. Less than 16 deaths a day in Sweden since July 2. Less than 8 deaths a day since July 19.
Swedens COVID related deaths will not go above 6000. Seems to be a 0.06% mortality rate, heavily weighted towards the aged.
6000 deaths is still a lot, yes.
This is June 25th.
"Fewer than 200 ICU beds available in Arizona as state reports more than 60,000 coronavirus cases."
This is July 3rd.
"State health officials say the capacity of hospital intensive care units is at an all-time high of 91%.
The number of people hospitalized Thursday due to a suspected or confirmed case of COVID-19 was 3,013, according to the Arizona Department of Health Services. It’s the first time reaching 3,000."
That's a pretty scary timeline. Things got real serious real quick in less than a month.
Also given it was 91% on July 3rd, I'd be interested in knowing what the situation was on August 3rd and September 3rd.
I found this plot from Arizona Department of Public Health.'Hospital Bed Usage & Availability' sub-tab 'Number of Intensive Care Unit Available and In-use at Arizona Hospitals.'
Everything is reported in percentages, so I don't know how the absolute number of beds shifted as a result of temporary increases in ICU capacity.
Check out this graph from Arizona department of health 'Hospital COVID-like & Influenza-like illness Surveillance.'
Maybe it's spurious correlation, but I'd bet money the May 25th memorial day weekend had something to do with that big spike you see ramping up May 31. Memorial day also happened to feature thousands of people from another state flooding into Lake Havasu and other, similar cities without mask restrictions, and visiting bars, restaurants, etc.
Bear in mind, there were no mask restrictions in AZ before that peak.
Nobody has an RCT, so we're all just whiteboarding it to some extent.
Maybe this is a spurious correlation too, but I'd bet money that the May 26th George Floyd protests had something to do with that big spike you see ramping up May 31 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests.
Truly, this is upsetting. Especially when you consider how violently they shun facemasks.
As you say, gas stations (pay at the pump, or go in with a mask), hotels (mask on, often no interaction) and restaurants (yep, that one is bad). The rest would be spent on the bike.
On the other hand, unlike at home, I don't meet anyone else, I don't go grocery shopping, and I don't use public transport.
Of course I could also indulge in a bit of whataboutism about what the locals are up to, but I don't think it's a compelling argument.
If you'd like to have a better idea of what the rally itself was like and its attendees, All Gas No Brakes did a bit on it.
As in: If you got 10k new cases in mid/late June, it's not "because" 10k people got infected at one event in early June, but because 10k ppl got infected in early June from 5k people who got infected in late July from ~3k people who got infected in early July from ~1k people who get infected in late May from one event.
Note: Specific numbers pulled out of my ass as an easy way to convey the idea.
- spreader lacks mask
- infectee lacks mask
- spreader speaks
- length of time spreader and infectee spend in contact
The speaking part is a wash -- plenty of speaking at both protests and spring break. The rest of them all are chiefly problems with spring break, chiefly because people frequently socialize indoors as they did at Sturgis.
Excess all-cause mortality in 2020 vs. previous years. (Note: data from recent weeks is incomplete.)
Also "experts": there is "no evidence" hundreds of thousands of people yelling slogans in the street for 100+ days are spreading COVID.
The two can't be true at the same time.
"The inside/outside dynamic is not the only part of the location that matters for the dangers these events present. The big protests mainly occurred in big cities and were mainly attended by locals. The Sturgis rally happens in the middle of nowhere, people come from all over, and then head back home to places that are generally more rural. Sturgis is therefore much more likely to spread the virus to people and places who wouldn't have had much exposure otherwise."
Significant percentage of the arrestees are _not_ locals. Look it up. Booking records are public.
Attendees do not seem to care, the venue does not enforce their policies, authorities do not take action...
I would not be surprised if there is a massive outbreak COVID-19 in that town.
I don't think I've even seen one article mentioning it...because racism.
Your comment is just ridiculous political pandering, trying to focus the topic other events that aren't similar in the slightest.
The inside/outside dynamic is not the only part of the location that matters for the dangers these events present. The big protests mainly occurred in big cities and were mainly attended by locals. The Sturgis rally happens in the middle of nowhere, people come from all over, and then head back home to places that are generally more rural. Sturgis is therefore much more likely to spread the virus to people and places who wouldn't have had much exposure otherwise.
Also we can't have this conversation while ignoring the false equivalency of these two events. There is a fundamental difference in the urgency of attending a protest versus attending the Sturgis rally. If they both presented the exact same danger to the population, Sturgis would still be a more egregious gathering due to being an entertainment event. We are in the middle of a pandemic. We can cut down on these large entertainment gatherings whether it is Sturgis or Coachella.
The constitution deliberately makes no such distinction.
From a moral perspective, getting people killed in order to have some fun is less defensible than getting people killed in support of civil rights. I wouldn't think that is a controversial statement.
The relevance is obvious.
These are enumerations, not distinctions. One person's right to protest is not of any more importance than another's right to associate freely at a motorcycle rally.
That's irrelevant. The virus doesn't care about the urgency. If both presented the exact same danger to the population, they should be handled exactly the same. Otherwise we are not arguing science but politics.
The Sturgis rally is on the long list of things we can skip for a year because its importance does not justify the risks involved.
I think the biggest difference is the protests skewed young and motorcycle rallies skew boomer.
+1 for the boomer skew.
Now for my generally useless tidbit, In my city it was very hot and humid during the early summer protests. Mask compliance was probably about 50/50, with most of the folks not complying were wearing them incorrectly or taking them on and off repeatedly. Demonstrators used the time as an opportunity to socialize and share meals, with lots of incidental physical contact.
The data and official guidance I have seen supports the idea that masks (and being outdoors) significantly reduces risk.
The data I've seen suggests that being outdoor reduces risks, I have not need any data or studies that compare being outdoor with or without a mask. I'd love to read your studies if you have them.
As an example, NYC contact tracers were forbidden to ask if people attended a protest.
Refusing to collect that data point is completely understandable from a public health standpoint. There is substantiated concern that people may end up on cop shitlists for attending a protest, we know that there is police overreach, and the only way to keep the pigs out of the trough is not providing it at all. NYPD is notoriously corrupt. If any single person ended up being harassed by the cops as a result for telling the truth no one will ever work with a contact tracer again.
Sad that the cops can't restrain themselves in a time of public emergency but that's the reality we live in.
Statistics can be looked at in aggregate. Infections did not go up in areas with large protests.
> "we find no evidence that urban protests reignited COVID-19 case growth during the more than three weeks following protest onset. We conclude that predictions of broad negative public health consequences of Black Lives Matter protests were far too narrowly conceived."