C
Caldera
Guest
Gov. Noem was on Fox & Friends Wednesday:
Sturgis motorcycle rally linked to more than 250,000 coronavirus cases, study finds
- Thread starter LeafByNiggle
- Start date
- Status
T
Theo520
Guest
It’s been linked to 290 cases across 12 states, not 250,000.
The OP research is fake news / junk science, call it what you will but it was extremely partisan and dishonest work.
V
Victoria33
Guest
See, I did hear of this one man who died who went to Sturgis.
If COVID were killing or spreading to so many people, there should be a lot more stories like this. Where are they?
Z
Zzyzx_Road
Guest
@LeafByNiggle When I consider how you promoted the importance of peer review in numerous other threads, I’m surprised you fell for this partisan slop hook, line and sinker. Seems to me that peer review can be dispensed with when the article supports your narrative. If someone produced similar slop about the effects of the protests, you would have been all over it.
It’s been over three weeks since the rally ended.
It’s been over three weeks since the rally ended.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Liz Wheeler from OAN devotes frequent shows to “What the MSM Was Afraid to Tell You”.
It is not “absolute” in the MSM hiding these facts from it’s viewers, but pretty close sometimes.
Here is a recent excellent one Wheeler did on the Stugis FAKE News spoof (written to be future fodder against Kristi Noem [who is an articulate conservative and has a bright political future] I suspect because there is not much public health value to this except to be on guard for FAKE News).
It is not “absolute” in the MSM hiding these facts from it’s viewers, but pretty close sometimes.
Here is a recent excellent one Wheeler did on the Stugis FAKE News spoof (written to be future fodder against Kristi Noem [who is an articulate conservative and has a bright political future] I suspect because there is not much public health value to this except to be on guard for FAKE News).
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The article I posted cleared says the study has not been peer-reviewed. I did not “fall” for anything. I realize the inaccuracies inherent in the statistical inferences made from covid-19 case numbers in counties with Sturgis visitors. Still, it is interesting, no? It is not surprising at all that the estimate in this study is vastly different from the count of know covid cases directly traceable to Sturgis. The directly traceable ones do not count the cases where visitors to Sturgis came back and spread the virus to others before being detected as having the disease. And many of them with the infection, if it was not very bad for them, may not have even reported it or knew it themselves. It was only after it showed up in their community statistics and became untraceable by direct means. So these figures are not even all that surprising, even if they not nearly as precise as direct counting. But that is understood in such statistical studies.
Z
Zzyzx_Road
Guest
Your caveat is noted.
But a few back of the napkin calculations should have shown you just how far off and how much baloney these numbers were. Like at least three orders of magnitude off. But somehow that didn’t that trigger the bull manure detector that you’ve displayed numerous times in other contexts?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Please present those back of the napkin calculations. I love back of the napkin calculations, and being mathematically inclined have been known to make them myself.
Last edited:
Z
Zzyzx_Road
Guest
Judging from your past posts across many topics, it’s clear you don’t fancy back of the napkin math. Or you would not have fallen for this so hard. You’re very orthodox in your belief in the authorities and in others who push your favored narratives, hence it rarely occurs to you to question their numbers.
Everyone should have at least enough math to do this sort of thing on their own so they can evaluate numbers presented by all sides for their realism. You’re invited to try this out yourself. You already have enough math to start, you don’t need me to show you how.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about, and I doubt that anyone else does either. It sounds to me like you are not talking about back of the napkin calculations (which are based on crude estimates, but still of some value) but gut intuition (which is based on nothing but feelings.) Besides, I’m sure the potential peer-reviewers of this study will appreciate the huge headstart you would be giving them in writing their review, if is as obvious as you say.LeafByNiggle:
Judging from your past posts across many topics, it’s clear you don’t fancy back of the napkin math. Or you would not have fallen for this so hard. You’re very orthodox in your belief in the authorities and in others who push your favored narratives, hence it rarely occurs to you to question their numbers.
Everyone should have at least enough math to do this sort of thing on their own so they can evaluate numbers presented by all sides for their realism. You’re invited to try this out yourself. You already have enough math to start, you don’t need me to show you how.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Horowitz: Coronavirus casualties from Sturgis biker rally super-spreader event don’t make news because they didn’t happen | Blaze Media
Contrary to media predictions.
www.theblaze.com
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Talk about your non-peer-reviewed studies, this one isn’t even a study. It is just some guy’s rant.
Last edited:
- Status