Super-spreading Trump rallies led to more than 700 COVID-19 deaths, study estimates

Los Angeles Times ^ | October 31, 2020 | Melissa Healy

[John W]

President Trump has described his campaign rallies as “fun,” “wonderful,” “the Greatest Show on Earth,” and, of course, “BIG.”

An effort to calculate whether those events have increased the spread of the coronavirus in the United States suggests that “contagious” and “deadly” would also apply.

A rigorous attempt to gauge the after-effects of 18 of the president’s reelection rallies, all held in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, suggests they have led to more than 30,000 additional cases and at least 700 additional deaths.

Those casualties would not have occurred if the campaign events had not taken place, according to a team of Stanford researchers. Media coverage of the rallies made clear there was little effort to follow guidelines about social distancing, and mask use was optional for attendees, who typically numbered in the thousands. (Indeed, face coverings were disparaged by the president on several occasions.)

[lepton]

your chance of dying from COVID19 is 0.2%, which is slightly higher than dying in a pedestrian accident. In other words, the walk to the polling location has a lower fatality content than the virus.

---

While this article reports a junk study, your link is pretty janky too. The chance of dying from COVID is (accepting your dubious premise of 0.2%) 0.2% if they catch it, this year, vs an entire lifetime chance of dying in a pedestrian car accident of about .094%.

[lepton]

your chance of dying from COVID19 is 0.2%, which is slightly higher than dying in a pedestrian accident. In other words, the walk to the polling location has a lower fatality content than the virus.

---

While this article reports a junk study, your link is pretty janky too. The chance of dying from COVID is (accepting your dubious premise of 0.2%) 0.2% if they catch it, this year, vs an entire lifetime chance of dying in a pedestrian car accident of about .185% (Sorry, first time took wrong car-related line).

[Samurai_Jack]

“Posting lies about this virus is wrong, whether it’s someone nominally on the right, or someone on the left.”

Dude you should lay off the caffeinated drinks.

[HotHunt]

"..... A rigorous attempt to gauge the after-effects of 18 of the president’s reelection rallies, all held in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, suggests they have led to more than 30,000 additional cases and at least 700 additional deaths.....Those casualties would not have occurred if the campaign events had not taken place, according to a team of Stanford researchers...."

Your rationale and conclusions are based on the assumptions that the Stanford researchers information is correct. It is not.

There is no way for anybody to trace the number of "new" cases (30,000) and the number of resulting deaths (700) back to the Trump rallies. They are stating a conclusion based upon little data and specifics.

Yet another attempt to discredit Trump and his rallies through innuendo and weak assumptions.

[thecodont]

Ditto.

[DoodleBob]

Terminology is important. My quoted likelihood of dying from COVID19 if you're 65+ is the sum of such fatalities (which as of today via this link is 136,794), divided by the total population of 65+ folks (which using a better source than I used originally, is 57.MM at the end of 2019), or 0.0026. Thus, the likelihood of dying is 0.26%. Sorry for their erroneous value previously.

Now, the Case Fatality Rate for people 65+, or the fatality rate from COVID19 for the 65+ population for those who were designated as being a "case" as of tonight per the CDC is 136,794 / 1,036,461 = 13.2%. But I didn't mention the CFR.

Finally, the odds of dying in a pedestrian incident is 1 / 541 or 0.0018 or 0.18%.

So, even if you are 65+, your chance of dying from COVID19 is 0.26%, which is slightly higher than the 0.18% chance of dying in a pedestrian accident.

[drwoof]

Indeed! I was poking fun at all the “science” being paraded around these days, when it’s usually just statistics drawn from skewed data or someone’s imagination. ;) Freep On!

[Redwood71]

“Science?” More like highly paid opinionated sooth sayers. The big thing has been the mask and they are now saying the damn things are not trustworthy. Like Lee Marvis said in Paint Your Wagon:” “Why can’t you make up your mind?!?!”

rwood