No that’s not the claim I’m trying to make. it wouldn’t have occured to me to call a stadium an outdoor event, they’re enclosed and even usually have cover over the spectators correct?
I thought that the riots, protests and mass gatherings would be bound to cause an increase in cases, I’ve been waiting for the incubation periods to see if it’s clearly risen but it doesn’t seem to be the case. Perhaps there were just too few people involved in them to make a measurable difference to the figures.
I’ve never been to an association football match, so perhaps someone can inform me: Is it a bit like the opera? Do the fans all sit quietly and calmly, avoiding all bodily contact and, if necessary, coughing discretely into a sleeve?
Or is there a certain amount of jostling, singing, hugging and cheering? I’ve never seen that sort of behaviour in Carlingwalk park in the metropolis of Castle Douglas. Nor, come to think of it, on a walk around Liverpool’s Mystery.
My impression is that there’s quite a difference between a crowded and possibly covered football stadium and, say, sitting on the grass sipping Pimms and watching elite Etonian bowlers make short shrift of shambolic Wykehamist batsmen.
Off_Field wrote:
I thought that the riots, protests and mass gatherings would be bound to cause an increase in cases, I’ve been waiting for the incubation periods to see if it’s clearly risen but it doesn’t seem to be the case. Perhaps there were just too few people involved in them to make a measurable difference to the figures.
That has been scientifically analyzed – and a relevant paper has been posted here yesterday: The increase in cases you would expect indeed from such protests has been more than compensated by even more people staying at home because they are scared by the riots. Even if TV pictures always suggest a different picture: It is only a very small share of the population of the city that is involved in such events (and therefore has a higher infection risk) while the vast majority stays away and stays at home when these happen and therefore significantly lower their risk.
Peter wrote:
This is sort of interesting although obviously some of it needs to be heavily qualified.
Looking at the shocking numbers from the last three days, Texas – and the entire US – would not be my first choice to ask about how to avoid Covid. Unfortunately it’s basically an entire country that doesn’t get it…
and therefore significantly lower their risk.
I don’t buy that, because one of the biggest transmission vectors here has been large families at home together, especially eating together. This is believed to be one of the major factors behind the BAME community getting worse rates – large room occupancy numbers, both culturally and due to having less money.
Being out in the fresh air is not a bad idea 
This is all a matter of probabilities and shades, with three main factors – number of people doing something, how long/often they do it, and the risk of catching it while doing it.
As individuals, everyone worries about the risk of catching it while doing it, but too few people think about the duration.
A public policy maker should take the number of people doing it into account, but under pressure, often does not.
Example – mass gatherings in stadiums. Yes, individual events are big, but there are only maybe half a million attendances in a week in the UK, while literally tens of millions attendances to pubs and restaurants will take place. Yet, stadiums were closed well before pubs because, ‘something must be done’. This only would make sense if the infection risk in a stadium is 100x higher than in a pub, which it clearly isn’t.
So on the protests – regardless of the actions of others maybe staying at home, a few 100 thousand people protesting once for a few hours outdoors is simply insignificant compared to what everybody else is doing all day long.
Peter wrote:
I don’t buy that, because one of the biggest transmission vectors here has been large families at home together, especially eating together.
That’s always the challenge with transferring individual level statistics to populations and the other way round.
Yes, if one family member is infected it is extremely likely that over short period of time the entire family will catch it. That is almost completely independent from staying at home or not because the time and proximity shared at home is almost always intense enough for infection.
If no family member is infected it is impossible to catch it if you only stay at home with your family.
Therefore more families staying at home has practically no influence on the intra family infection rate but does a lot to reduce the spread between different families.
Malibuflyer wrote:
Last sentence is clearly fake news.
I really, really dislike the phrase “fake news”. It is more often than not used when someone really means “I disagree”. “Fake news” is an overused Trumpism, often used wildly out of context and in very inappropriate places.
alioth wrote:
I really, really dislike the phrase “fake news”. It is more often than not used when someone really means “I disagree”. “Fake news” is an overused Trumpism, often used wildly out of context and in very inappropriate places.
In general I fully agree!
In that was, however, claiming that “The conclusion is that the virus does not really spread outdoors.” while if you read the paper that is said to have this conclusion and figure out, it said pretty much the opposite is not “I disagree” but exactly fake news!
Actually there have been many studies that shows the virus doesn’t spread easily outdoors. I wish I could find it now but one of them had numbers, and to summarise, all things being equal you’re something like 18 times less likely to catch the virus outdoors than indoors.
As other evidence, the notorious “packed beach” events haven’t coincided with noticeable spikes of infection either.
Further evidence from the Isle of Man: the ‘outdoor’ part of our lockdown was never as severe as the UK or Ireland, but we eradicated it. The worst infection spreads here were always traced to a spread indoors.
Meanwhile, in Texas, the reopening of indoor venues with nearly zero precautions has coincided with the restart of the virus’s exponential growth there.
