4 1

LINK Sturgis Motorcycle Rally May Have Caused 250,000 Coronavirus Cases, Economists Say

I'm trying to disprove the study in this article

Can someone with more experience than I in these types of studies point me to where it is wrong?

I'm looking for informed specifics having to do with methodology, results, or data interpretation. Not looking for confirmation bias or dunning kruger please

TheMiddleWay 8 Sep 8

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


Why do you have to disprove a "may have caused" from an economist writing for Forbes Magazine? All of these facts, are enough for me to completely discount it. The investors are looking for reasons to fear "Outbreaks", which mean certain stocks will be a buy. No one in this economist's mind really cares if it true or not. Selling and buying occurs when someones "theory" of a stocks potential to rise or fall is believed by enough traders. This is the noise all stock holders learn to ignore. It is like CNN except it can cost you real money!

Because being an economist or appearing in forbes neither addresses the methodology, data, or results of the paper.

It is not uncommon for a person from one field of study to make significant contributions to another field of study. So I'm wondering if that might be the case here... or as you state, if he doesn't know what he is talking about.

The only way to know is to dismiss the paper, not dismiss the person or publication. (Ad Hominem).


Good review of the assumptions that went into the paper... as well as pointing out it had not been peer-reviewed, which is very important to me in these types of claims.


key words = "may have"


The guy is a economist not an immunologist, or even a doctor. Forbes is a magazine that covers economic news he just pushing a narrative that he hopes will sell a vaccine that he has invested in.

That is true. But that in and of itself doesn't mean their analysis is incorrect.

What would an epidemiologist have done differently?
Or alternatively, what needed to be done in this study that an epidemiologist would have done but this study didn't?

@TheMiddleWay these results were made from a projection program exactly like the ones used to create the hysteria caused the first panic that never happened. the real count of cases from people that were at the event is less than 300 and there is no proof they got the virus at the event.

I'm not too savvy in this field as I've admitted, sorry?

Which projection program are you referring to? I know that lots of people have used lots of different simulations but I didn't know that it was one specific one

And Where did you find the real count for the event? Is there some registry or contact tracing or what?

@TheMiddleWay from Governor Kristi Noem on FB page it is a news report/interview from fox news
The projection modeling is done with computer models that have proved themselves very unreliable in predicting many things from economic trends , environmental change and disease spread, these modeling programs are one of the worst software to come out of the software industry.

@TheMiddleWay this is were you can get your very own software enter data to create your own pandemic


Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:130542 does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.