7 ms·

Couldn't we go further, and just say "cities increase seasonal influenza mortality"? I mean, anything that is social, is almost certain to involve increased tr

Couldn't we go further, and just say "cities increase seasonal influenza mortality"? I mean, anything that is social, is almost certain to involve increased transmission of human-to-human infectious diseases. Live theater, classrooms, church services, drag shows, you name it, if it involves bringing a lot of people together, it's probably going to increase the spread of infectious diseases that spread by human-to-human transmission.

seizethecheese 6y ago
This paper specifically looks at before and after a sports team arrives, so it’s independent of the effect of cities.
- josephcsible 6y ago
  The point was "cities increase it too", not "it's just cities and not sports teams".
  - acituan 6y ago
    Which doesn’t follow because people who attend to local sporting events don’t only do that in a city, and the increase in question is upon the baseline mortality of a city. So turns out cities have a lot of headroom to increase flu mortality based on what activities take place in them and we can’t conclude “cities” as a uniform entity do increase flu mortality with the data at hand. Before the impact of their health services kicked in, cities around the world did have different covid transmission patterns.
thepowersthatbe 6y ago
No, we can't. That realization would interfere with important narratives and is not welcome. We'll simply couple our newfound fears with our existing fears (US football brain injuries, etc.) and finally, at long last, do away with useless ableist pastimes like professional sports. Just stay home. We'll let you know if and when your allowed leave going forward.
throwaway894345 6y ago
Public transit being another example of close-quarters contact in typically unsanitary conditions. And for those puritans who will inevitably attempt to reduce everything to a moral binary, I am not arguing against public transit. It’s a very good thing in many locations and I have no problem believing it is more ecologically friendly than many other modes of transit.
- thex10 6y ago
  My impression was this common idea has not yet been found in research though -- do you have any studies to back this up?
  - seizethecheese 6y ago
    It’s harder to isolate than a sports team, but that there is an effect is just common sense.
    - sdenton4 6y ago
      It doesn't seem hard to isolate; some people drive every day, and others ride transit. Common sense is often wrong, so it's good to interrogate it. (E.g., maybe constant low level exposures lead to stronger immune systems and less loss of life? Common sense tells me it's an effect!)
      - kennywinker 6y ago
        But lots of other things likely co-vary with use of public transit, the obvious one being income level
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    No, this is speculative. To be clear, the absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence at least in the very short term. Research and analysis take time.
  - im3w1l 6y ago
threatofrain 6y ago
It's good to quantify and ballpark that damage instead of leaving it as an intuitive guess. If public policy demands the trading of lives, at least it shouldn't be done by way of blind poker. This study ballparks it around 10-20 deaths per year per 100k residents.
- RspecMAuthortah 6y ago
  > It's good to quantify and ballpark that damage instead of leaving it as an intuitive guess. Except it is hard to quantify the downside of that bears on quality of life and take that into account. My 70+ year old parents are homebound for last 5+ months, and their overall physical and mental health from lack of physical and social activities have significantly gone down, to the point I expect if this goes on another 6 months or more I might lose at least one of my parents.
  - threatofrain 6y ago
    This is a study which looks at the relative impact of pro sports on influenza deaths in cities, not a study on COVID-19. But if a pandemic did hit, and we didn't have any data on the relative impact of different events on death, then you're more blind than ever in making judgments like whether churches should be restricted to 50 (why not 25 or 100?). Similarly, there ought to be discussions on increases in mortality for any other causes under current contexts, including deaths by suicide — there's certainly been a lot of resistance to discussing the impacts of lockdown on public health.
- clairity 6y ago
  > "This study ballparks it around 10-20 deaths per year per 100k residents." no, it's 1-4 per million[0], so basically inconsequential relative to the (low) ~hundreds per million who typically die each year. dying from sporting event-acquired flu is really, really low on the list of dangers to worry about. worry about the trip getting there instead, if you must worry. [0] based on seizethecheese's quote, as i couldn't read the paper directly: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24180543 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24180543
D0zMe 6y ago
It's time to head for the hills and live with satellite internet.
tunesmith 6y ago
But what would be the point of saying that? It sounds like you have an implicit therefore of "life is risk, so there's nothing to be done". This touches on what I've noticed as a common logic flaw - reducing something to binary when it's the degree that matters. Yes, increased interactivity increases some sorts of risks (binary). But depending on the degree of that increased risk, we may wish to manage that somehow on a societal level. (For instance, in a post-COVID world, NFL teams could issue a non-mandated team-branded cloth mask on every seat in the winter months.)
vmception 6y ago
Couldnt we go further and just say “wow I dont find anything wrong with this study how refreshing”
undersuit 6y ago
Why don't we go further and not blame cities. Outbreaks can happen in the country barn dance or whatever.

seizethecheese 6y ago

This paper specifically looks at before and after a sports team arrives, so it’s independent of the effect of cities.

josephcsible 6y ago
The point was "cities increase it too", not "it's just cities and not sports teams".
- acituan 6y ago
  Which doesn’t follow because people who attend to local sporting events don’t only do that in a city, and the increase in question is upon the baseline mortality of a city. So turns out cities have a lot of headroom to increase flu mortality based on what activities take place in them and we can’t conclude “cities” as a uniform entity do increase flu mortality with the data at hand. Before the impact of their health services kicked in, cities around the world did have different covid transmission patterns.

thepowersthatbe 6y ago

No, we can't. That realization would interfere with important narratives and is not welcome. We'll simply couple our newfound fears with our existing fears (US football brain injuries, etc.) and finally, at long last, do away with useless ableist pastimes like professional sports. Just stay home. We'll let you know if and when your allowed leave going forward.

throwaway894345 6y ago

Public transit being another example of close-quarters contact in typically unsanitary conditions. And for those puritans who will inevitably attempt to reduce everything to a moral binary, I am not arguing against public transit. It’s a very good thing in many locations and I have no problem believing it is more ecologically friendly than many other modes of transit.

thex10 6y ago
My impression was this common idea has not yet been found in research though -- do you have any studies to back this up?
- seizethecheese 6y ago
  It’s harder to isolate than a sports team, but that there is an effect is just common sense.
  - sdenton4 6y ago
    It doesn't seem hard to isolate; some people drive every day, and others ride transit. Common sense is often wrong, so it's good to interrogate it. (E.g., maybe constant low level exposures lead to stronger immune systems and less loss of life? Common sense tells me it's an effect!)
    - kennywinker 6y ago
      But lots of other things likely co-vary with use of public transit, the obvious one being income level
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  No, this is speculative. To be clear, the absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence at least in the very short term. Research and analysis take time.
- im3w1l 6y ago

threatofrain 6y ago

It's good to quantify and ballpark that damage instead of leaving it as an intuitive guess. If public policy demands the trading of lives, at least it shouldn't be done by way of blind poker. This study ballparks it around 10-20 deaths per year per 100k residents.

RspecMAuthortah 6y ago
> It's good to quantify and ballpark that damage instead of leaving it as an intuitive guess. Except it is hard to quantify the downside of that bears on quality of life and take that into account. My 70+ year old parents are homebound for last 5+ months, and their overall physical and mental health from lack of physical and social activities have significantly gone down, to the point I expect if this goes on another 6 months or more I might lose at least one of my parents.
- threatofrain 6y ago
  This is a study which looks at the relative impact of pro sports on influenza deaths in cities, not a study on COVID-19. But if a pandemic did hit, and we didn't have any data on the relative impact of different events on death, then you're more blind than ever in making judgments like whether churches should be restricted to 50 (why not 25 or 100?). Similarly, there ought to be discussions on increases in mortality for any other causes under current contexts, including deaths by suicide — there's certainly been a lot of resistance to discussing the impacts of lockdown on public health.
clairity 6y ago
> "This study ballparks it around 10-20 deaths per year per 100k residents." no, it's 1-4 per million[0], so basically inconsequential relative to the (low) ~hundreds per million who typically die each year. dying from sporting event-acquired flu is really, really low on the list of dangers to worry about. worry about the trip getting there instead, if you must worry. [0] based on seizethecheese's quote, as i couldn't read the paper directly: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24180543 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24180543

D0zMe 6y ago

It's time to head for the hills and live with satellite internet.

tunesmith 6y ago

But what would be the point of saying that? It sounds like you have an implicit therefore of "life is risk, so there's nothing to be done". This touches on what I've noticed as a common logic flaw - reducing something to binary when it's the degree that matters. Yes, increased interactivity increases some sorts of risks (binary). But depending on the degree of that increased risk, we may wish to manage that somehow on a societal level. (For instance, in a post-COVID world, NFL teams could issue a non-mandated team-branded cloth mask on every seat in the winter months.)

vmception 6y ago

Couldnt we go further and just say “wow I dont find anything wrong with this study how refreshing”

undersuit 6y ago

Why don't we go further and not blame cities. Outbreaks can happen in the country barn dance or whatever.