> Author chooses to show a particular political bias again and fails to mention the other major event that caused a uptick in cases (nationwide protests)
So far the data says otherwise. It seems to be a combination of three things that made spreading at the protests low.
1. They were open air events where people were moving around a lot,
2. A large percentage of attendees were wearing masks, and
3. Not many attendees were infected.
Health officials did heavy testing at several of the protests or of people shortly after they attended. In Minneapolis 1.8% were positive. Seattle was less than 1%. Boston was 1.1%.
If you encountered an infected person at a protest, #1 alone greatly reduced your chances of being around that person long enough to get an infectious dose unless they actually were coughing or sneezing on you.
Then you've got the masks making it even less likely.
With only 1-2% infected, you probably won't encounter enough infected people serially for all the little exposures to add up.
So far the data says otherwise. It seems to be a combination of three things that made spreading at the protests low.
1. They were open air events where people were moving around a lot,
2. A large percentage of attendees were wearing masks, and
3. Not many attendees were infected.
Health officials did heavy testing at several of the protests or of people shortly after they attended. In Minneapolis 1.8% were positive. Seattle was less than 1%. Boston was 1.1%.
If you encountered an infected person at a protest, #1 alone greatly reduced your chances of being around that person long enough to get an infectious dose unless they actually were coughing or sneezing on you.
Then you've got the masks making it even less likely.
With only 1-2% infected, you probably won't encounter enough infected people serially for all the little exposures to add up.