> “Especially today, when screens are with us all the time, we need to better support parents in non-screen time tips and tricks to keep infants engaged and parents sane.”

Thanks for including that quote. I doubt the researchers are trying to "shame" parents who put their infants in front of screens, but it seems like their overall goal is to support parents in ways that also help their children.

I read this as LGBTQ+- on the app and wondered who was being removed from the LGBTQ+ community.

It’s (LGBTQ+)—friendly

> One single snap shot during the 95% of the worst of the Beta variant is just showing the effects of the beta outbreak.

Ok, for the SEVENTH time: do you have any source at all about your claims on the Beta variant or not?

> 51 NBA games happened this week with close to 20,000 fans in attendance indoors and there were are no 200% covid increase outbreaks happening.

Did you account for increased vaccination and natural immunity rates?

Ok, for the SIXTH time, what is your source on your claim on these claims of yours:

> BECAUSE THEY [the authors] ALREADY KNOW THE CAUSE WAS THE BETA VARIANT

>The cause of the increase in cases was the Beta Variant and nothing else

Also:

>The same data was collected outside of the Beta outbreak in another paper and all of the correlation and inferred connections disappeared.

> One set occurred Aug-Dec 2020 and they also looked at NCAA games.

Ok, so it's not the same data and you admit your first statement was incorrect?

> The Strong relationship when over 20,000 fans is explained by population density being higher in the larger cities and outbreaks effecting higher populated areas significantly harder.

Should I even bother asking you if you have a source on this one?

> I provided Mechanisms, Reasoning, Comparing papers and variables.

Ok, so for the fifth time, please provide a PAPER backing up your claim about the Beta variant ("BECAUSE THEY [the authors] ALREADY KNOW THE CAUSE WAS THE BETA VARIANT" and "The cause of the increase in cases was the Beta Variant and nothing else")

> contradicts yourself

No, what I said was that there were no COVID problems with less than 10,000 people (or maybe 5000 people) and there were COVID problems with more than 20,000 people. Show me where I contradicted myself.

> NO COVID PROBLEMS FROM NFL GAMES.

Do you work for the NFL or something? The conclusion is "no covid problems with less then 10,000 people" not "NO COVID PROBLEMS FROM NFL GAMES"

I just want everyone to know that I have asked u/bkydx on three separate occasions for a source on his claim that the cause of the post-NFL spike was the Beta variant, as it relates to the current paper in discussion, and so far they have provided nothing.

They have now also backpedaled from "BECAUSE THEY [the authors] ALREADY KNOW THE CAUSE WAS THE BETA VARIANT" and "The cause of the increase in cases was the Beta Variant and nothing else" to "just maybe" the spike was caused by the beta variant.

> BECAUSE THEY ALREADY KNOW THE CAUSE WAS THE BETA VARIANT.

> Of course the article I linked doesn't mention the beta variant because it wasn't prevalent yet.

Ok, so for the third time, what is your source on "the cause was the beta variant"? If your next reply doesn't have a source I am assuming that you just made this up.

> So you have 2 papers with different results looking at the same thing. One shows 200% increase and one shows no increase

No, the papers are actually consistent. One paper allowed for attendance up to 20,000 or more and found an increase in COVID. Another paper only considered limited attendance (up to 13,000) and found no increase. They do not "look at the same thing."

Also, you say that both papers look at the "same thing" and you say beta variant was prevalent in one paper but not the other? You are contradicting yourself.

> Assuming both papers are truthful by looking and comparing their results and data you can reasonably assume outdoor stadiums are not a significant concern to the general population.

They found this for outdoor stadiums with limited attendance, sure.

>I would argue indoor get-togethers are higher risk then outdoor stadiums.

I agree, but this doesn't contradict the paper that OP posted.

> https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2783110

I analyzed this article in this comment here, are you going to reply or concede my point?

https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/z55vqm/a_study_of_nfl_games_during_the_2020_season/ixvje3g/

> BECAUSE THEY ALREADY KNOW THE CAUSE WAS THE BETA VARIANT.

Right, this goes back to my question about a source for this.

> Look https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2783110

> Zero increase in covid from 600 sporting events with 10,000 people.

I already glanced at that article and responded in another comment. That article doesn’t mention the beta variant.

> non-causally attribute

The authors explicitly state that their results are non-causal.

> Toumi et Al used the data from 600 games with an average of 10,000 people and showed no increase in covid in the county.

I found the link:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8371570/

They considered limited attendance with a median of 9949 people (6000 to 13 797) and found no increase in COVID activity.

This paper that OP posted here did not consider specifically limited attendance, and allowed for attendance at 20,000 or higher (as mentioned in the title). They also found no increased covid activity at <5,000 people, consistent with the Toumi, et al. paper. So it appears that the paper you cited has results consistent with the paper that OP posted. So limited attendance (perhaps even up to 10,000-13,000) does not increase COVID, although attendance of 20,000 people does increase COVID.

> the only reason

Do you have a source that it’s the only reason?

I will take a look at the other paper you mentioned

Which mutation occurred during the 2020 NFL season?

In what way did they cherry pick those 270 games?

They never claimed the NFL caused anything. They explicitly say their results are not causal.

They did compare attendance, with results differing with <5,000 fans and >20,000 fans.

> Games with fewer than 5000 fans were not associated with any spikes, but in counties where teams had 20 000 fans in attendance, there were 2.23 times the rate of spikes in COVID-19 (95% CI, 1.53 to ∞).

> Games with fewer than 5000 fans were not associated with any spikes, but in counties where teams had 20 000 fans in attendance, there were 2.23 times the rate of spikes in COVID-19 (95% CI, 1.53 to ∞).

>outside with social distancing

From the article:

> Games with fewer than 5000 fans were not associated with any spikes, but in counties where teams had 20 000 fans in attendance, there were 2.23 times the rate of spikes in COVID-19 (95% CI, 1.53 to ∞).

They did not

You are correct, as the authors acknowledge:

>Limitations

>Several limitations should be noted. First, it was impossible to assess cause and effect to the fan-attended games and the increase in cases or rates over the ensuing weeks. For example, it is possible that areas with less stringent COVID-19 restrictions, which research has linked to higher incidences of cases and deaths,20 were more encouraging of higher fan attendance. As such, these findings should be interpreted as associational and not causal.

The authors analyzed 7-day, 14-day and 21-day windows following the game. They found increased COVID spikes in 14-day and 21-day windows (although not 7-day windows). So I would guess one possible policy in the future would be to test for windows at varying intervals after the first game, and see if there is a spike before deciding on the second game. Since NFL games are weekly (for the most part), not having back-to-back home games seems like a good idea. A Thursday home game right after a Sunday home game seems like a very poor idea as well.

> Overall, 269 total NFL games (117 with fans and 152 without fans) were included; a total of XX individuals attended.

Is "XX" supposed be a number here?

> When the National Football League (NFL) announced its intentions to play a full season of football in 2020, some thought the decision was devoid of consideration of the health and well-being of the players, coaches, staff members, and even the fans who would attend. However, others wanted live football back as the games would offer a respite from the stress and anxiety that the COVID-19 pandemic had brought to their lives. The NFL, like other professional sport leagues, was dealing with large revenue-based financial losses and a desire to resume play.

Off-topic, but I appreciate how we're not even pretending that the NFL was motivated by anything other than money.

Happy cakeday

> In April 2022, Food and Chemical Toxicology, an Elsevier journal, published a review article dealing with mRNA anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines [10], pretending that these vaccines are at the cause of a series of dreadful diseases for a large number of people (neurodegenerative disease, myocarditis, immune thrombocytopenia, Bell’s palsy, liver disease, impaired adaptive immunity, impaired DNA damage response and tumorigenesis).

Ahh, Elsevier…

> Abstract

>Recently, an article by Seneff et al. entitled “Innate immunosuppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes, and MicroRNAs” was published in Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT). Here, we describe why this article, which contains unsubstantiated claims and misunderstandings such as “billions of lives are potentially at risk” with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, is problematic and should be retracted. We report here our request to the editor of FCT to have our rebuttal published, unfortunately rejected after three rounds of reviewing. Fighting the spread of false information requires enormous effort while receiving little or no credit for this necessary work, which often even ends up being threatened. This need for more scientific integrity is at the heart of our advocacy, and we call for large support, especially from editors and publishers, to fight more effectively against deadly disinformation.