Ah, experts; experts and their lickspittle, panic-mongering lackeys of the press
/
Glenn Reynolds notes that the 2022 Sturgis, S.D. motorcycle rally is going on, with 450,000-500,000 in attendance, and asks where all those bikers were supposed to have been killed by COVID at last year’s rally?
Reynold’s point is apt, but he got the year wrong: it was the 2020 rally, when the health authorities were only a few months into employing their campaign of fear to shut down America.
Nineteen percent of the 1.4 million new coronavirus cases in the U.S. between Aug. 2 and Sept. 2 can be traced back to the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally held in South Dakota, according to researchers from San Diego State University's Center for Health Economics & Policy Studies.
That's more than 266,000 coronavirus cases attributed to the 10-day event, which more than 460,000 people attended despite fears it could become a so-called super-spreader event.
"We conclude that the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally generated public health costs of approximately $12.2 billion," the researchers wrote in a paper. "This is enough to have paid each of the estimated 462,182 rally attendees $26,553.64 not to attend."
19% of all million COVID-19 cases between Aug. 2 and Sept. 2. Oh.My. God!!!!
The “study” was thoroughly debunked, but even after the true numbers came out: 414 cases, one death, USA Today continued to defend it, as best it could:
The claim: A post online attributes 88 positive tests to Sturgis Rally, 0.02% infection rate of attendees
Motorcyclists from around the country converged on Sturgis, South Dakota, for the town’s annual motorcycle rally in August — most unmasked and ignoring social distancing guidelines. Some on social media are claiming the event had little effect on the spread of COVID-19.
“Mass testing of Sturgis workers, residents result in no more positive results % than the rest of the state average,” a screenshot of a post reads. “Actually on the low end of the scale. All positive cases were asymptomatic."
The post goes on to say the South Dakota Department of Health is allegedly attributing 88 positive tests to the rally, and that with 450,000 rally attendees, that’s a 0.02% infection rate.
The screenshot has been shared by Facebook group Bikers for Trump and multiple individuals. That group did not respond to USA TODAY’s request for comment and clarification.
Fact check:Cloth masks ineffective against wildfire smoke, still slow spread of COVID-19
Our findings, in short
The post doesn't quite get the facts right – or the math. South Dakota confirmed 124 COVID-19 cases tied to the Sturgis Rally as of Sept. 8, and other states have reported at least 290 people in 12 states testing positive after attending the rally. About 460,000 people attended the rally. The infection rate based on the above numbers is 0.09%, found by dividing 414 (South Dakota's cases plus the other states' cases) by 460,000, and multiplying that by 100. If there had been just 88 cases, the infection rate would have been 0.02%, as the original poster said.
The rest of the article is devoted to defending the original study, but you can read that by following the link, if you wish. My point is that this was a typical “study” at the time, based entirely on the wishful farts out of so-called scientists’ rear ends, yet it got national publicity and was reported as though it were true.
Cloth masks, coronavirus and wildfires
Cloth masks and other nonmedical-grade face coverings aren't the best way to stop a person from inhaling infectious particles and droplets. Rather, face coverings are widely mandated because they make it more difficult for infected people to spread the virus.
“Masks are recommended as a simple barrier to help prevent respiratory droplets from traveling into the air and onto other people when the person wearing the mask coughs, sneezes, talks, or raises their voice. This is called source control,” the CDC says in its guidelines.
Fact check:What's true and what's false about face masks?
SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19, is mostly spread through droplets and other particulates, which people share by coughing, sneezing, singing, talking or yelling.
Though cloth masks are only marginally effective at stopping viral particles from being inhaled, they are more effective at stopping people from putting more particles into their environment.
When large majorities wear face masks, the aggregate effect can seriously slow the spread of a respiratory disease such as COVID-19.
“COVID-19 can be spread by people who do not have symptoms and do not know that they are infected. That’s why it’s important for everyone to wear masks in public settings and practice social distancing,” the CDC emphasizes.
All total bullshit, of course, and know even before this USA Article was published:
Data do not back cloth masks to limit COVID-19, experts say
April 09, 2020
Limited, indirect evidence from lab studies suggests that homemade fabric masks may capture large respiratory droplets, but there is no evidence they impede the transmission of aerosols implicated in the spread of COVID-19, according to a paper published yesterday by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
In the paper, the National Academies' Standing Committee on Emerging Infectious Diseases and 21st Century Health Threats said that, because no studies have been done on the effectiveness of cloth masks in preventing transmission of coronavirus to others, it is impossible to assess their benefits, if any.
The paper was prepared by committee members Richard Besser, MD, of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and Baruch Fischhoff, PhD, of Carnegie Mellon University, and two subject matter experts contributed. It was approved by Committee Chair Harvey Fineberg, MD, PhD, and was peer-reviewed by seven additional US experts.
In the absence of widespread availability of more effective protection and to preserve surgical masks and respirators for healthcare workers, homemade fabric masks have been proposed to limit spread of coronavirus by wearers who might be contagious but are asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently endorsed their use.
Committee members point out that research suggests that COVID-19 can spread via invisible droplets as small as 5 microns and by tiny bioaerosol particles as well as via visible respiratory droplets just by breathing.
Infected yet asymptomatic people are of particular concern because the particles they breathe are predominantly bioaerosols. "To complicate matters further, different individuals vary in the extent to which they emit bioaerosols while breathing," they said.
That bold statement of science now has this disclaimer appended:
This news story has not been updated since the date shown. Information contained in this story may be outdated. For current information about MIT Medical’s services, please see relevant areas of the MIT Medical website.
And so on. But just as no one will ever come back and hang the gl;global warming experts who destroyed the world, these charlatans will never be prosecuted.
‘Sad.
