Are we going to have another spike of COVID after this 4th of July weekend? Last week Capitol Public Radio reported that public health officials believe that “the reopening of businesses in many California counties gave residents the idea it was safe to host parties, which has driven much of the recent uptick in COVID-19 cases.”
More alarming than the uptick in cases is the spike in hospitalization numbers.
Dr. Lee Riley, an infectious disease expert at UC Berkeley, told Capitol Public Radio that hospitalization numbers are more telling than case numbers in terms of how the virus is behaving.
“The fact that there’s also an increase in the number of hospitalizations suggests that it’s not just because of the testing,” he said. “That means that there are more transmissions occurring.”
Some have also suggested that the protests for the last month following the death of George Floyd have contributed to this problem.
Five researchers contributed to a working paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research, on BLM Protests, Social Distancing and COVID-19. The publication is considered a “working paper” and is “circulated for discussion and comment purposes.” It has not been peer-reviewed or subject to review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications.
The five researchers are at variety of departments across the country—in the area of Economics and also the Center for Health Economics at San Diego State.
They note: “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.”
The 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.
They found no evidence that the urban protests re-ignated COVID cases during the three weeks of protests.
They concluded “that predictions of broad negative public health consequences of Black Lives Matter protests were far too narrowly conceived.”
In fact, on the contrary, they found that while the protests themselves did not match well with social distancing guidelines, “the protesting population is not the only one that may have a behavioral response.”
They in fact hypothesize that there may well be a counter-balance that some people protest, but others in response to the protests actually stay at home to avoid exposure to the protests.
The data actually shows that this occurs and they “find increases in staying-at-home behaviors across both cities with and without curfews” and “that overall the onset of mass protests has led to an increase in social distancing, on the net, which is consistent with a counteracting response among non-protesting residents who may be avoiding venturing out as the protests are underway, possibly due to perceived safety concerns.”
They add, “The behavioral response may also reflect a diminution of economic and business activity.” And they don’t clearly consider the impact of the curfew either.
However, that does not address a key concern that local protesters travel back home and may help spread the coronavirus to others.
If that is the case, “it is possible that we may see an increase in COVID-19 case growth, as a result of community spread from this subset of population (protest participants) for whom there was by definition an increase in out-of-home mobility and reduced social distancing.”
But they don’t find this. Instead, “Trends between the treated and non-treated counties are virtually identical prior to the protests. This is reassuring and suggests that the timing of the protests is not correlated with trends in COVID-19 case growth or unobservable determinants of case growth. We find no significant divergence in the trends after the protests.”
They also consider that the lack of any strong effects for COVID-19 case growth may be due to the lack of sufficient time “to detect a resurgence or increase in the infection rates.”
However, they note that their samples include “at least 21 days of data following the early protests that took place in 154 cities” and “at least 18 days of data following protests in 242 cities, and at least 16 days of data for 257 cities that experienced protests.”
Given a median incubation period of of 5.1 days, with 75 percent of infected individuals experiencing within 6.7 days and 97.5 percent within 11.5 days, they believe that the surge would have shown up.
They concluded that “while it is possible that the protests caused an increase in the spread of COVID-19 among those who attended the protests, we demonstrate that the protests had little effect on the spread of COVID-19 for the entire population of the counties with protests during the more than three weeks following protest onset.”
While this study does not look at individual level effects, it does pretty convincingly conclude that the protests were not the drivers for the surge of cases of COVID we have seen in the last several weeks.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9
What are the political leanings of the five researchers?
Davis Vanguard: “Objection!”
Prosecutor Miller: “Goes to bias, Your Honor”
Your Honor: “I’ll allow it”
Did Alan Miller read the article? Does Alan Miller understand the math?
I never dumb good math 2_2 = 6
A bit more complicated than that…
So in other words the protests don’t follow good social distancing protocol and are spreading the virus to some degree, but the protests are also scaring an exactly equal number of people into staying home and thus not be exposed to the virus, equaling everything out while promoting progressive politics, a win-win, except for some of the protestors, who actually were exposed.
By the way when researchers hypothesize in this manner with no evidence presented, they are guessing or speaking out of their collective arses.
The way research of this sort works is you develop hypotheses that you then empirically test.
The way research of this sort works is you don’t release your hypotheses to the public, you wait until you have done the imperial testing.
It is kind of an interesting study if you do not take a ball headed approach to it as you seem to have.
Most people are going to attempt to get at this problem with individual level data. The problem with individual level data is you have to determine who actually was at the protest.
They avoid that by using aggregate level data and using a comparative statics model which compares before and after at the location but it also compares across locations based on whether they had protests or not. It’s a very smart model. There’s some problems with it but overall it’s very interesting. Too bad your comments aren’t.
That’s telling him.
I haven’t read the paper, but David’s summary indicates that the authors did the empirical testing with a structured model. What part are you objecting to? If it’s the release of a working paper prior to peer review, that is NOT the way that academic research works. My computer is filled up with prepublication working papers. Peer reviewed journal articles are often published several YEARS after the working papers are released. The peer review generally just confirms the findings.
Here’s a whole LIBRARY of economics working papers at NBER. https://www.nber.org/papers.html Many university departments have long lists of working papers open to the public.
Brilliant, thoughtful comeback . . . how long did it take you to come up with that one?
I disagree. I don’t know about the ones that have become violent, but at the peaceful ones that are on TV (and locally), I see practices that are generally good. People consistently wear masks (compliance rate is an extremely high %–I don’t see people without a mask) and they keep a good distance, particularly when they are standing still which is the highest risk moment. No, it’s not perfect, but compared to the rally in Tulsa and other protests over social inconveniences, its much, much better.
Note that there is no ironclad science behind what is “good social distancing protocol.” It’s guesswork (and being conservative is much better). This study is probably showing us that closer outdoor contact while being masked is not as risky as we thought. We’re learning all the time.
BTW, I didn’t go back to check (because its so hard to find past comments on this site), but did you answer my question as to what is a reasonable alternative means of carrying out these protests for needed change? (And delaying the protests is not an acceptable answer.)
Read: “Looting is good for decreasing the spread of the virus, because you can’t do business at, and therefore have a potential virus contact at, a store that is closed or no longer exists.”
Much of the looting is being instigated by those who want to discredit the protesters. My son has gathered a number of videos and pictures documenting this activity. Note also that the violence at these protests has largely dissipated.
Not sure how anyone can determine “motive” for looting, by looking at videos. I usually make an assumption that they want a free TV, for example.
Nor do I assume that they’re “protesting”, though another commenter on here stated that looting is protesting, as I recall.
Richard… most if not all looting has no political ‘roots’… greedy opportunists who would use anything for ‘cover’… they are not the economically desperate, not trying to affirm or discredit anything… after the SF earthquake and fire in 1906, they (looters) were generally labelled “ghouls”, and the martial law in force in the aftermath, permitted ‘shoot on sight’… (yes, have read the old newspaper accounts)…
All I’ve got to say to that is Bwahahahahaha.
Was this study peer reviewed?
We all know how important that a study be peer reviewed is to David.
Curious as to how carefully you read my article?
I read it, but you yourself have often discredited non peer reviewed studies so why would you present this non peer reviewed study?
If you read it, you know the answer and the explanation. It’s a neat way to analyze the issue, but it doesn’t get to the individual level data.
I’ll answer that: DG likes peer-reviewed studies that agree with his world view.
Mr. Greenwald, “what you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response, were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.” — from the movie “Billy Madison”
“DG likes peer-reviewed studies that agree with his world view.”
I never said that. I criticized one study that was not peer-reviewed because it had been roundly criticized by those in its field. That was my only comment on peer review.
He asked if the article was peer reviewed, my article states in the sixth paragraph: ” The publication is considered a “working paper” and is “circulated for discussion and comment purposes.” It has not been peer-reviewed or subject to review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications.” So that suggested to me that Keith hadn’t bothered to read the article very closely, if at all.
Keith O
See my comment above about the release of working papers. Peer review is not a necessity for releasing research results. You are more than welcome (as is any other researcher) to review the working paper and find fault with the analysis. That’s why working papers are released. Peer review can take a couple of years. Is it just that you don’t want to hear the news at this moment because its inconvenient?
Richard… meant as honest question… working papers/docs are indeed ‘put out there’, for public and peer review, as I understand it… but they usually are identified as such, and citing (or implying) such as “authoritative” would be as incorrect as the Supreme Court citing a decision by a local judge in Modoc County as a “precedent” to validity… am I incorrect?
Richard, see the quote above. It came from you on the Vanguard. So in one case you demand peer reviewed results, but why not here also? Maybe it’s because you do want to hear the news at this moment because it’s convenient?
I’m curious as to why my comment here is awaiting moderation?
David has often discredited other studies for that fact that they’re not peer reviewed.
So why is my comment pointing out the same thing that David himself has pointed out on other studies being muffled?
Alan… 9.9 points if intentional! Only 5.7 if a typo… ‘gotta know which…
Is imperial testing different from metric testing? Or does it have to do with different kinds of ale? ;^)
More complicated than that… ‘imperial gallon’ is not the same as ‘US gallon’… without even getting to SI (metric)… am pleased that Alan and/or I added some levity… things were getting “strange”, which applies in any system of measurement that I am aware of…
Levity is not tolerated in the year 1984, or at the DV.
Good evening Mr. Marshall. Should any of your fellow commenters be caught or killed, the Davis Vanguard will disavow any knowledge of their comments. Our comments will be deleted in five seconds. Good luck, Bill.
. . . was an accident, I’m sure. And now I’m going to take a long bike ride. I like the way the endolphins make me feel after exercise.
A great piece in the New York Times today by David Brooks. Here are two cuts (in reverse order), that clearly make my overall point about the political/medical disaster that are the protests, on all sides, and why:
Our fixation on the awfulness of Donald Trump has distracted us from the larger problems and rendered us strangely passive in the face of them. Sure, this was a Republican failure, but it was also a collective failure, and it follows a few decades of collective failures.
It wasn’t Trump who put on hospital gowns and told the American people you could suspend the lockdown if your cause was just. Once you told people they could suspend the lockdown for one thing, they were going to suspend it for others.
Here’s a NY Times article that’s somewhat fairly written, who knew the Times had it in them?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/protests-unsafe-experts-may-depend-120550724.html
You keep wanting to cite people’s opinions rather than data.