NBER: Protests did not spread coronavrius

[Visbek]

Working Paper link is here: https://www.nber.org/papers/w27408.pdf

Sparked by the killing of George Floyd in police custody, the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests
have brought a new wave of attention to the issue of inequality within criminal justice. However,
many public health officials have warned that mass protests could lead to a reduction in social
distancing behavior, spurring a resurgence of COVID-19. This study uses newly collected data on
protests in 315 of the largest U.S. cities to estimate the impacts of mass protests on social
distancing and COVID-19 case growth. Event-study analyses provide strong evidence that net
stay-at-home behavior increased following protest onset, consistent with the hypothesis that
nonprotesters’ behavior was substantially affected by urban protests. This effect was not fully
explained by the imposition of city curfews. Estimated effects were generally larger for persistent
protests and those accompanied by media reports of violence. Furthermore, 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.
(Emphasis added)

I think it's still a bit early to make that call -- 3-4 weeks after the start of the protests may not be enough time to see the full impact. Plus, no single study should be treated as definitive.

That said, I'm not too surprised by this. Furthermore, if it is correct, then I'd say it is a good sign that a lot of outdoor activities are relatively safe -- possibly including restaurants, beaches, concerts and more. (I'm a little more sanguine about bars, as drinking doesn't tend to make people more responsible. )

Hopefully, the authors will continue to examine the situation, and update their research with new findings.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Working Paper link is here: https://www.nber.org/papers/w27408.pdf

Sparked by the killing of George Floyd in police custody, the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests
have brought a new wave of attention to the issue of inequality within criminal justice. However,
many public health officials have warned that mass protests could lead to a reduction in social
distancing behavior, spurring a resurgence of COVID-19. This study uses newly collected data on
protests in 315 of the largest U.S. cities to estimate the impacts of mass protests on social
distancing and COVID-19 case growth. Event-study analyses provide strong evidence that net
stay-at-home behavior increased following protest onset, consistent with the hypothesis that
nonprotesters’ behavior was substantially affected by urban protests. This effect was not fully
explained by the imposition of city curfews. Estimated effects were generally larger for persistent
protests and those accompanied by media reports of violence. Furthermore, 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.
(Emphasis added)

I think it's still a bit early to make that call -- 3-4 weeks after the start of the protests may not be enough time to see the full impact. Plus, no single study should be treated as definitive.

That said, I'm not too surprised by this. Furthermore, if it is correct, then I'd say it is a good sign that a lot of outdoor activities are relatively safe -- possibly including restaurants, beaches, concerts and more. (I'm a little more sanguine about bars, as drinking doesn't tend to make people more responsible. )

Hopefully, the authors will continue to examine the situation, and update their research with new findings.

Or alternately, the studies are purposefully covering up any protest spread of the virus for fear of being targeted by the neo-jacobin mobs on the streets.

I mean they are working overtime to cover up China’s labratory study of bat viruses in the very city this emerged from. These institutions must be considered compromised

 

[Deuce]

Or alternately, the studies are purposefully covering up any protest spread of the virus for fear of being targeted by the neo-jacobin mobs on the streets.

I mean they are working overtime to cover up China’s labratory study of bat viruses in the very city this emerged from. These institutions must be considered compromised

Feel free to show us the math you used to support the hypothesis.

 

[Mr Person]

Or alternately, the studies are purposefully covering up <>

:lol:


Uhuh, sure. CT forum is that way. <points>

 

[Helix]

Every public gathering is a risk during a pandemic.

 

[jotathought]

Working Paper link is here: https://www.nber.org/papers/w27408.pdf

Sparked by the killing of George Floyd in police custody, the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests
have brought a new wave of attention to the issue of inequality within criminal justice. However,
many public health officials have warned that mass protests could lead to a reduction in social
distancing behavior, spurring a resurgence of COVID-19. This study uses newly collected data on
protests in 315 of the largest U.S. cities to estimate the impacts of mass protests on social
distancing and COVID-19 case growth. Event-study analyses provide strong evidence that net
stay-at-home behavior increased following protest onset, consistent with the hypothesis that
nonprotesters’ behavior was substantially affected by urban protests. This effect was not fully
explained by the imposition of city curfews. Estimated effects were generally larger for persistent
protests and those accompanied by media reports of violence. Furthermore, 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.
(Emphasis added)

I think it's still a bit early to make that call -- 3-4 weeks after the start of the protests may not be enough time to see the full impact. Plus, no single study should be treated as definitive.

That said, I'm not too surprised by this. Furthermore, if it is correct, then I'd say it is a good sign that a lot of outdoor activities are relatively safe -- possibly including restaurants, beaches, concerts and more. (I'm a little more sanguine about bars, as drinking doesn't tend to make people more responsible. )

Hopefully, the authors will continue to examine the situation, and update their research with new findings.

I would challenge this, as the guidance from CDC concerning the visitation of Parks and Recreational Areas states the following:

Know before you go: While these facilities and areas can offer health benefits, it is important that you follow the steps below to protect yourself and others from COVID-19.

DO
Visit parks that are close to your home.

Check with the park or recreation area in advance to prepare safely and to find out if the bathroom facilities are open and what services are available.

Stay at least 6 feet away from others you don’t live with (“social distancing”) and take other steps to prevent COVID-19.

Carefully consider use of playgrounds, and help children follow guidelines.

Play it safe around and in swimming pools, hot tubs, and water playgrounds by keeping space between yourself and others.

DON’T
Visit parks if you are sick with, tested positive for COVID-19, or know you were recently exposed to COVID-19.

Visit crowded parks.

Either the guidance is correct or incorrect, and if studies show that densely populated outdoor gatherings are copacetic, then why was everything outdoors locked down for 2 - 3 months?

 

[beerftw]

Working Paper link is here: https://www.nber.org/papers/w27408.pdf

Sparked by the killing of George Floyd in police custody, the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests
have brought a new wave of attention to the issue of inequality within criminal justice. However,
many public health officials have warned that mass protests could lead to a reduction in social
distancing behavior, spurring a resurgence of COVID-19. This study uses newly collected data on
protests in 315 of the largest U.S. cities to estimate the impacts of mass protests on social
distancing and COVID-19 case growth. Event-study analyses provide strong evidence that net
stay-at-home behavior increased following protest onset, consistent with the hypothesis that
nonprotesters’ behavior was substantially affected by urban protests. This effect was not fully
explained by the imposition of city curfews. Estimated effects were generally larger for persistent
protests and those accompanied by media reports of violence. Furthermore, 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.
(Emphasis added)

I think it's still a bit early to make that call -- 3-4 weeks after the start of the protests may not be enough time to see the full impact. Plus, no single study should be treated as definitive.

That said, I'm not too surprised by this. Furthermore, if it is correct, then I'd say it is a good sign that a lot of outdoor activities are relatively safe -- possibly including restaurants, beaches, concerts and more. (I'm a little more sanguine about bars, as drinking doesn't tend to make people more responsible. )

Hopefully, the authors will continue to examine the situation, and update their research with new findings.

I really want to see the full math, how crowds who mostly wore no masks or social distanced somehow had no effect on the increase but states who reopened with restrictions for safety must somehow be to blame, but not tens of thousands of protesters huddled together, or the vast ramping up of testin.

I generally would call bs as around here all the areas with large spike are all the areas affected by protesters in mass like austin dallas san antonio and houston, the non protesting areas are freaking out like my county because we hit an all time high of 80 hospitalizations and the news reports despite having 362k polulation in the county.

 

[apdst]

But going to church and the beach does. :lamo

 

[VySky]

Good news. Then all across our nation business should return to normal

 

[HumblePi]

[h=1]East Lansing bar linked to 85 positive cases of coronavirus[/h]https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/06/27/east-lansing-bar-linked-85-positive-cases-coronavirus/3272687001



So, 85 cases of Covid-19 in one single bar in Lansing -- you know that city where the protestors stormed the state capital building demanding businesses be reopened so they could go back into their favorite bar -- compared to tens of thousands of protestors wearing masks. What's to think about?

 

[TypicalRussian]

covid protestors did not spread the virus either

 

[maxparrish]

Working Paper link is here: https://www.nber.org/papers/w27408.pdf

Sparked by the killing of George Floyd in police custody, the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests
have brought a new wave of attention to the issue of inequality within criminal justice. However,
many public health officials have warned that mass protests could lead to a reduction in social
distancing behavior, spurring a resurgence of COVID-19. This study uses newly collected data on
protests in 315 of the largest U.S. cities to estimate the impacts of mass protests on social
distancing and COVID-19 case growth. Event-study analyses provide strong evidence that net
stay-at-home behavior increased following protest onset, consistent with the hypothesis that
nonprotesters’ behavior was substantially affected by urban protests. This effect was not fully
explained by the imposition of city curfews. Estimated effects were generally larger for persistent
protests and those accompanied by media reports of violence. Furthermore, 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.
(Emphasis added)

I think it's still a bit early to make that call -- 3-4 weeks after the start of the protests may not be enough time to see the full impact. Plus, no single study should be treated as definitive.

That said, I'm not too surprised by this. Furthermore, if it is correct, then I'd say it is a good sign that a lot of outdoor activities are relatively safe -- possibly including restaurants, beaches, concerts and more. (I'm a little more sanguine about bars, as drinking doesn't tend to make people more responsible. )

Hopefully, the authors will continue to examine the situation, and update their research with new findings.

In other words, as much as the authors bury the lede in obscuring verbiage, it turns out we skeptics WERE RIGHT FOR MONTHS. Outdoor exposure, even in crowds, are not a vector of infection!

In short: back to sports and stop the panic porn.

 

[Chomsky]

Or alternately, the studies are purposefully covering up any protest spread of the virus for fear of being targeted by the neo-jacobin mobs on the streets.

I mean they are working overtime to cover up China’s labratory study of bat viruses in the very city this emerged from. These institutions must be considered compromised

What "covering-up" is that? And by whom?

 

[Visbek]

Or alternately, the studies are purposefully covering up any protest spread of the virus for fear of being targeted by the neo-jacobin mobs on the streets.

Spare us the conspiracy theory nonsense.

You obviously aren't engaging anything whatsoever about the study, you're just objecting to its findings. Sorry not sorry, but I have no patience for such blatant bias.

 

[ReubenSherr]

Working Paper link is here: https://www.nber.org/papers/w27408.pdf

Sparked by the killing of George Floyd in police custody, the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests
have brought a new wave of attention to the issue of inequality within criminal justice. However,
many public health officials have warned that mass protests could lead to a reduction in social
distancing behavior, spurring a resurgence of COVID-19. This study uses newly collected data on
protests in 315 of the largest U.S. cities to estimate the impacts of mass protests on social
distancing and COVID-19 case growth. Event-study analyses provide strong evidence that net
stay-at-home behavior increased following protest onset, consistent with the hypothesis that
nonprotesters’ behavior was substantially affected by urban protests. This effect was not fully
explained by the imposition of city curfews. Estimated effects were generally larger for persistent
protests and those accompanied by media reports of violence. Furthermore, 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.
(Emphasis added)

I think it's still a bit early to make that call -- 3-4 weeks after the start of the protests may not be enough time to see the full impact. Plus, no single study should be treated as definitive.

That said, I'm not too surprised by this. Furthermore, if it is correct, then I'd say it is a good sign that a lot of outdoor activities are relatively safe -- possibly including restaurants, beaches, concerts and more. (I'm a little more sanguine about bars, as drinking doesn't tend to make people more responsible. )

Hopefully, the authors will continue to examine the situation, and update their research with new findings.

Uh huh...

The "National Bureau of Economic Research" headquarted in Cambridge, Massachusetts

Lol couldn't see this coming :lamo

 

[Visbek]

I would challenge this, as the guidance from CDC concerning the visitation of Parks and Recreational Areas states the following....

Either the guidance is correct or incorrect, and if studies show that densely populated outdoor gatherings are copacetic, then why was everything outdoors locked down for 2 - 3 months?

So what you're saying is: "We just learned this now. Why didn't we know this 3 months ago?" The answer to that should be obvious.

This is a new virus. There was a lot we didn't know about the virus 3 months ago, and a lot we still don't know.

In March, for example, we didn't know if the coronavirus spread primarily via respiration or surfaces; as a result, the early recommendations had to cover both. During a pandemic, especially at the start, it is much better to overreact than underreact.

We still don't know aspects such as likely transmission rates outdoors or indoors. Studies like this fill in gaps in knowledge. As I said above, no single study should be treated as authoritative.

As we learn more about the virus, we will have a better idea what is risky and what is safe, and the best way to do as much as we can without the virus spinning out of control. Studies like this are how we learn and organizations like the CDC periodically update their advice based on this type of research.

So, I'd stick with the CDC recommendations for now, and will not freak out if they update their recommendations in a month or two, as more evidence provides a fuller picture.

 

[Bullseye]

Working Paper link is here: https://www.nber.org/papers/w27408.pdf

Sparked by the killing of George Floyd in police custody, the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests
have brought a new wave of attention to the issue of inequality within criminal justice. However,
many public health officials have warned that mass protests could lead to a reduction in social
distancing behavior, spurring a resurgence of COVID-19. This study uses newly collected data on
protests in 315 of the largest U.S. cities to estimate the impacts of mass protests on social
distancing and COVID-19 case growth. Event-study analyses provide strong evidence that net
stay-at-home behavior increased following protest onset, consistent with the hypothesis that
nonprotesters’ behavior was substantially affected by urban protests. This effect was not fully
explained by the imposition of city curfews. Estimated effects were generally larger for persistent
protests and those accompanied by media reports of violence. Furthermore, 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.
(Emphasis added)

I think it's still a bit early to make that call -- 3-4 weeks after the start of the protests may not be enough time to see the full impact. Plus, no single study should be treated as definitive.

That said, I'm not too surprised by this. Furthermore, if it is correct, then I'd say it is a good sign that a lot of outdoor activities are relatively safe -- possibly including restaurants, beaches, concerts and more. (I'm a little more sanguine about bars, as drinking doesn't tend to make people more responsible. )

Hopefully, the authors will continue to examine the situation, and update their research with new findings.

Interesting. The spike in under 40 cases show no correlation to protests? So that means masks and social distancing have no value? And yet, the close and chaotic atmosphere in bars is being blamed for the spikes in Florida, Arizona and Texas. Maybe the heat from the burning buildings killed the virus during the riots.

I agree with you that mnp single study is definitive. There's no telling how many asymptomatic or mild cases returned home and infected others.

 

[Visbek]

I really want to see the full math....

It's a 60 page paper. Link is at the top of the OP.

....how crowds who mostly wore no masks or social distanced somehow had no effect on the increase but states who reopened with restrictions for safety must somehow be to blame, but not tens of thousands of protesters huddled together, or the vast ramping up of testin.

It is probably because poorly ventilated indoor environments where people aren't wearing masks are much more likely to spread the virus than outdoor environments where at least some people are wearing masks.

We should note that there are already a lot of bars, churches, casinos, strip joints, meat-packing plants and other indoor spaces that have become hot spots in just the past few weeks.

I generally would call bs as around here all the areas with large spike are all the areas affected by protesters in mass like austin dallas san antonio and houston....

You shouldn't, as numerous other protest centers like Minneapolis, New York, DC, San Francisco etc haven't had a spike in cases. There were also lots of protests in Europe, and no big spike in cases.

There are also numerous counties, such as on the east coast of Florida, where there weren't huge protests and are big spikes in cases.

Plus, just saying "it's spreading in Houston!" isn't enough to prove that protests are at fault. Big cities like that also have bars, churches, restaurants and lots of other places where the virus spreads.

 

[Visbek]

The "National Bureau of Economic Research" headquarted in Cambridge, Massachusetts

Spare us the conspiracy theory nonsense.

You obviously aren't engaging anything whatsoever about the study, you're just objecting to its findings. Sorry not sorry, but I have no patience for such blatant bull****.

 

[trixare4kids]

Interesting. The spike in under 40 cases show no correlation to protests? So that means masks and social distancing have no value? And yet, the close and chaotic atmosphere in bars is being blamed for the spikes in Florida, Arizona and Texas. Maybe the heat from the burning buildings killed the virus during the riots.

I agree with you that mnp single study is definitive. There's no telling how many asymptomatic or mild cases returned home and infected others.

The spike, surge, call it whatever you want to, is happening amongst Hispanics more than any other Demographic. Hell, look at San Diego county for starters and then google and it proves it. Proves that the spike is not with white people.

The left nutlugs and their media will have us believe it's Trump's base, um, not so. It's a lie they have conjured up to go against Trump.

 

[Bullseye]

It's a 60 page paper. Link is at the top of the OP.



It is probably because poorly ventilated indoor environments where people aren't wearing masks are much more likely to spread the virus than outdoor environments where at least some people are wearing masks.

We should note that there are already a lot of bars, churches, casinos, strip joints, meat-packing plants and other indoor spaces that have become hot spots in just the past few weeks.



You shouldn't, as numerous other protest centers like Minneapolis, New York, DC, San Francisco etc haven't had a spike in cases. There were also lots of protests in Europe, and no big spike in cases.

There are also numerous counties, such as on the east coast of Florida, where there weren't huge protests and are big spikes in cases.

Plus, just saying "it's spreading in Houston!" isn't enough to prove that protests are at fault. Big cities like that also have bars, churches, restaurants and lots of other places where the virus spreads.

The tear gas killed the virus; or maybe the heat from the burning buildings.

 

[Bullseye]

The spike, surge, call it whatever you want to, is happening amongst Hispanics more than any other Demographic. Hell, look at San Diego county for starters and then google and it proves it. Proves that the spike is not with white people.

The left nutlugs and their media will have us believe it's Trump's base, um, not so. It's a lie they have conjured up to go against Trump.

Strikes me strange that a bunch of kids drinking a bar are called "superspreaders" while thousands of milling, shouting, fire bombers are "safe". NBER did mention the idea that a lot of people stayed home in protesting cities which may have offset the rioters. It just seems strange that these spikes pop up after these states have been open for a long time.

 

[ReubenSherr]

Spare us the conspiracy theory nonsense.

You obviously aren't engaging anything whatsoever about the study, you're just objecting to its findings. Sorry not sorry, but I have no patience for such blatant bull****.

You do realize literally everything you link comes from areas which are 90% Liberal

This was obviously a study done to “clear” Democrats if any wrongdoing

 

[Visbek]

Interesting. The spike in under 40 cases show no correlation to protests?

Did you not read the abstract, which I quoted?

So that means masks and social distancing have no value?

:roll:

And yet, the close and chaotic atmosphere in bars is being blamed for the spikes in Florida, Arizona and Texas.

That's because the majority of those bars are indoors, poorly ventilated, encourage drinking (which seldom results in responsible behavior) and have too many people indoors.

Bars aren't the only places spreading the virus, either. Churches, where people are certainly more orderly and responsible, are also recent hot spots.

Also, if you had bothered to read the abstract (let alone the paper), you'd see that a major component of the net result is that the protests caused many non-participants to stay home, which (surprise!) has the same effect as, wait for it... social distancing.

From the conclusion:

...it is possible that the result of suggestive lower spread of COVID-19 relative to
non-protesting cities is due in part to characteristics of the protesters. For example, protest
attendees may have mitigated the spread of COVID-19 via infection countermeasures such as
wearing masks. The attendees may further be a selected subpopulation of younger individuals
who if infected have less severe symptoms (Liao et al. 2020) and thus may never get tested and
not show up in the official COVID-19 numbers.

Regardless of the underlying mechanisms, our findings show that the protests and the
fight against COVID-19 were on net aligned. It is important to underscore that our findings do
not imply that that this was the case for all parts of the population. The net effect of increased
sheltering and decreased case growth could mask adverse outcomes within a subset of the
population (specifically protest attendees). This could hypothetically cause a redistribution of
public health benefits (and costs) across demographic groups, and could only be measured with
more granular data that to our knowledge does not exist at present.

However, when considering the results’ implications for the entire population: public
speech and public health did not trade off against each other in this case. Our findings also
highlight the importance of understanding the behavior of all relevant populations when
conducting analysis in the realm of social science in general, and public health in particular: the
most visible portion of the population is not always the primary driver of the outcome of interest.

 

[Mongidig]

Does the article go into how many people from the protests have been tested? I have a feeling a good amount of these people might not go to the doctor or get tested even if they were feeling ill. I'm curious about the sample size.

This article is way too long for me to read.

I still don't feel comfortable with large gatherings but the Ozarks and Michigan protests didn't spark much either.