Inmate Central Inmate Central, where civil and family-friendly discourse about off-audio topics (other than religion and politics) is welcome. |
|
In Reply to: Not so sure what you're missing; posted by tinear on July 15, 2020 at 14:12:56:
Let me try to sum up the paper one more time in the simplest way possible:
1. Protests = less social distancing
2. Non-protesters avoiding going out because of the protests = more social distancing
3. More non-protesters than protesters, therefore more social distancing overallThe only way anyone can argue with certainty that protests did or didn't spread the virus is if you compare the infection rates of protesters and non-protesters in the period after the protests. The only city I'm aware of that did that is Boston, and there was a slightly higher positivity rate of 2.5% among the protesters vs. 1.9% for the general population in the same week. But there's a lot of uncontrolled variables in that comparison, so in my opinion it's inconclusive.
EDIT: Minneapolis did the same thing, albeit on the smaller scale, and the results were 1.4% vs 1%, so again, a small difference for the protesters but inconclusive.
Because nobody else gathered any data on infection rates of protesters vs. non-protesters, the authors of the study had to make their point based on a social distancing metric and not actual cases.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- That is not evidence that protests don't spread the virus - Dave_K 07/15/2014:48:21 07/15/20 (3)
- I'll double down: overall, protesters were shown to lower infections. - tinear 05:41:09 07/16/20 (0)
- Statistics... - Rod M 18:40:22 07/15/20 (1)
- Apparently its different where you are, but where I am in NJ anyone can get tested, both..... - Rick W 21:38:19 07/15/20 (0)