The sheer volume of reporters/newspapers/tv stations that have unquestioningly accepted the results of the #SturgisRally study is... well... disappointing
There are some assumptions in it that could very well be flawed. ($46K per case for example)
I looked at CO data...
(more)
There are some assumptions in it that could very well be flawed. ($46K per case for example)
I looked at CO data...
(more)
Study specifically references Jefferson, Weld, and Adams counties where 1.) lots of residents went to Sturgis and 2.)saw a notable increase in COVID cases.
So, I looked at each county's data...
Adams, for example, experienced NO marked increase.
tchd.org/823/Case-Updat…
So, I looked at each county's data...
Adams, for example, experienced NO marked increase.
tchd.org/823/Case-Updat…
To be clear, I'm not saying the study is wrong...
But I am guessing most reporters reporting on this have yet to even read the study
Here it is if you want to read it:
ftp.iza.org/dp13670.pdf
But I am guessing most reporters reporting on this have yet to even read the study
Here it is if you want to read it:
ftp.iza.org/dp13670.pdf
The study suggests Sturgis was a superspreader event that could be tied to a quarter of a million cases
With a cost of $12.2 BILLION to the health care system
Yet in the three Colorado counties that saw a high number of people go... the Colorado data shows no sustained growth
With a cost of $12.2 BILLION to the health care system
Yet in the three Colorado counties that saw a high number of people go... the Colorado data shows no sustained growth
Could that change?
Sure
Was it responsible for thousands of people to crowd together in a SD town in the middle of a pandemic?
You can decide for yourself
BUT
for reporters to take the non-peer reviewed study w/o question for cheap clicks...
WELL.
That's not great
Sure
Was it responsible for thousands of people to crowd together in a SD town in the middle of a pandemic?
You can decide for yourself
BUT
for reporters to take the non-peer reviewed study w/o question for cheap clicks...
WELL.
That's not great
And THIS IS PRECISELY WHY OUR NAYSAYERS CRITICIZE US
By sharing the negative "sky is falling" stories w/o questioning it... and simultaneously showing skepticism of stories that suggest maybe it's not
we become unwitting cheerleaders in a story with huge policy implications.
By sharing the negative "sky is falling" stories w/o questioning it... and simultaneously showing skepticism of stories that suggest maybe it's not
we become unwitting cheerleaders in a story with huge policy implications.
All I'm asking for is consistent level of skepticism to be shared across the spectrum on this story.
That's all...
We've scared people, sometimes (but not always) needlessly so.
This story is scary enough without our worst tendencies adding more fuel to this fire.
That's all...
We've scared people, sometimes (but not always) needlessly so.
This story is scary enough without our worst tendencies adding more fuel to this fire.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
