A new study links the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally in South Dakota to a truly shocking number of cases of the virus—nearly 20% of the national total in August.
However, many, like South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, have pushed back against the study, claiming it's "fiction" meant to attack those "exercising their personal freedoms."
A new study finds the Sturgis motorcycle rally in South Dakota was a coronavirus “superpreading event" that cost public health agencies $12.2 billion. Thank GOP @govkristinoem https://t.co/2BcfQaFvz1
— Amy Siskind 🏳️🌈 (@Amy_Siskind) September 8, 2020
The study, written by a team of researchers at the San Diego State University's Center for Health Economics & Policy Studies and the IZA Institute of Labor Economics, used cell-phone data to suggest the event's thousands of maskless attendees spread the virus throughout the country.
Following the rally, Sturgis experienced a 35% case spike.
The researchers wrote in their paper:
"The Sturgis Motorcycle Rally represents a situation where many of the 'worst-case scenarios' for superspreading occurred simultaneously."
"The event was prolonged, included individuals packed closely together, involved a large out-of-town population (a population that was orders of magnitude larger than the local population), and had low compliance with recommended infection countermeasures such as the use of masks."
In response to the study, Governor Kristi Noem claimed it was a complete fabrication.
This report isn't science. It's fiction.
Under the guise of academic research, it's nothing short of an attack on those who exercised their personal freedom to attend Sturgis. (THREAD 1/) https://t.co/3zkmabJV2y
— Governor Kristi Noem (@govkristinoem) September 8, 2020
Predictably, some in the media breathlessly report on this non-peer reviewed model, built on incredibly faulty assumptions that do not reflect the actual facts and data. (2/)
— Governor Kristi Noem (@govkristinoem) September 8, 2020
At one point, academic modeling also told us that South Dakota would have 10,000 COVID patients in the hospital at our peak. Today, we have less than 70.
I look forward to good journalists, credible academics, and honest citizens repudiating this nonsense. (3/3)
— Governor Kristi Noem (@govkristinoem) September 8, 2020
Many people online felt that even if the study's numbers were exaggerated, it didn't make holding the Sturgis event safe or wise.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that having hundreds of thousands of people gathered for 10 days during a pandemic was a bad idea.
— Travis Kriens (@traviskriens) September 8, 2020
Freedom of choice? The city council of Sturgis sent out a survey asking for local input. 60% said cancel, they went ahead anyhow. Where was their choice?
— Lisa (@hahnylisa) September 8, 2020
State officials pushed back against the study, noting that it was not peer-reviewed and failed to take school re-openings into account.
It's interesting that now you're interested in peer reviewed science. It's never mattered before. Some leaders rise to the challenges of their times and then there's you who goes on a national tour and encourages her state to become a covid hot spot. Resign and join the rodeo.
— Geri Mattern (@geri_mattern) September 8, 2020
this is not even an analysis.
it's a compilation of data tricks and mistaking models for reality.
it uses cases without adjusting for testing levels.
but worse, it uses a made up baseline. to see just how badly that baseline misleads, here are 3 US states
one hosted sturgis. https://t.co/R2mvzv1xZf pic.twitter.com/G4ys2of63m
— el gato malo (@boriquagato) September 8, 2020
Honestly we shouldn't be surprised that this could be the case. It was irresponsible to have the rally. pic.twitter.com/dO4VckgP7B
— yibo sunbae 𖧵 still missing yoonjin (@london_fog89) September 9, 2020
Even if you feel a study is unfair, claiming science is "fiction" is never a good look for a politician.
Leaders take responsibility. This isn't leadership, Governor. You need to start taking this pandemic seriously. Stop playing politics and lead.
— Doug Murano (@muranofiction) September 8, 2020
First, the actual facts as presented in the report are, well, factual. Anyone who read the report and checked its sources could see that. Second, the report, and the outlets distributing it, made no claim that it was peer reviewed. Your claims are unsubstantive. Predictably.
— gooding_the_c (@gooding_the_c) September 8, 2020
There have been times Noem was more than willing to get behind pseudo-science.
Says the woman who signed the whole state up for a hydroxychloroquine trial which was stopped three weeks later.
If you're so concerned about "science" you wouldn't have held the rally in the first place. All you did was collect some taxes and leave a mess for other states.
— Clark (@Clark408) September 8, 2020
Not everyone is running around maskless & refusing to social distance. Sturgis gave us a glimpse of what no mitigation strategies would have looked like.#COVID19 is far more infectious than flu. https://t.co/Ak1eMxuenR
— Joimonki 🌊 😷 IMissMyGrandchildren #GrANTIFA (@joimonki) September 8, 2020
Many felt the Sturgis event was directly tied to South Dakota's heightened positivity rate.
Kristi Noem should be in jail for manslaughter. @govkristinoem
— NoelCaslerComedy (@CaslerNoel) September 9, 2020
2 weeks after the Sturgis motorcycle rally, South Dakota has the highest positivity rate (20.9%) in the country.
— Henry J. Kraven (@HenryJKraven) September 7, 2020
The pandemic is not over and all public officials should be going out of their way to encourage social distancing and safety measures whenever possible.
reply to @renwithoutcontext/TikTok
reply to @renwithoutcontext/TikTok
reply to @renwithoutcontext/TikTok
reply to @renwithoutcontext/TikTok
reply to @renwithoutcontext/TikTok
reply to @renwithoutcontext/TikTok
reply to @renwithoutcontext/TikTok
reply to @renwithoutcontext/TikTok
reply to @renwithoutcontext/TikTok
reply to @renwithoutcontext/TikTok
reply to @renwithoutcontext/TikTok
reply to @diorbecca/TikTok
reply to @diorbecca/TikTok
reply to @diorbecca/TikTok
reply to @renwithoutcontext/TikTok
@meitham/TikTok
@meitham/TikTok
@meitham/TikTok
@meitham/TikTok
@meitham/TikTok
@meitham/TikTok
@meitham/TikTok
@meitham/TikTok
@meitham/TikTok
@meitham/TikTok
@meitham/TikTok
@meitham/TikTok
@taylaajacksonn/TikTok
@taylaajacksonn/TikTok
@taylaajacksonn/TikTok
@taylaajacksonn/TikTok
@taylaajacksonn/TikTok
@taylaajacksonn/TikTok
@taylaajacksonn/TikTok
@taylaajacksonn/TikTok
@taylaajacksonn/TikTok
@taylaajacksonn/TikTok