But months of demonstrations accompanied by looting and rioting gets a pass because it’s more important.
It’s well known that all members of IZA Institute of Labor Economics suffer from the incurable and deleterious effects of unknown syphilitic brain infections.
Bs
“It is ALL assumptions and modeling, taking numbers from projected small percent increases nationally to project totals back in the assumed placed where the bikers came from.”
My reply is as follows:
I skimmed through the paper. . . And you hit the nail on the head. Made up data and projected made up data on what the number of purported Covid19 cases reported were going to be in each of the assumed home areas and Sturgis. . . And what they assumed it would be if it was a worst case condition IF attendees were as contagious as they assumed. SHEESH!Synthetic control this, synthetic assumption that... and an EXACT result of 266,796 cases at their conclusion???
As I said above, such an exact number in a statistical analysis always signals completely lying asshats intended to get the attention of people totally ignorant of what a statistical result should be able to do, and look like. ABSURD!!!
They claim their results are based on data ONE MONTH post Sturgis. Sturgis concluded August 16. That would mean they’d need to sample data on September 15th to use BEFORE starting their raw data analysis. Yet they were submitting their paper for publication, meaning it had already been written, on September 2nd. I know from papers I wrote back in the dark ages, collecting, compiling, and analyzing such data is at least a several week project. I grant you that computers and the internet cuts SOME time off that, but writing, formatting, and editing (even with the typos and misused words I noted in this paper in just a quick, cursory scan through) a 63 page statistical paper still takes some reasonable amount of time for discussion, construction, formatting, editing, before assembly and writing, correlation of data and researching background literature, etc. and then the final collaboration among the four authors who are at four different locations. Let’s give that a week.
That takes them back seven days from the 2nd to just ten days post Sturgis for any data to be collected, still inside the two week gestation period of Covid19. I think we can safely assume that for the first few days post Sturgis, there is no valid data to collect. I.E. this is likely proof that their data is all bogus, and the paper written with conclusion a foregone target before they started. Which, of course, we knew already.
Expert trolling for grant dollars.
Sounds like a joke. At the minimum, speculation.