Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Professional sporting events increase seasonal influenza mortality in US cities

privpapers.ssrn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 83 posts

Re: Professional sporting events increase seasonal influenza mortality in US cities

#21

Post by RspecMAuthortah »

threatofrain wrote: post #16
rossdavidh wrote: post #3

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-hum…

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.

> 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.

Re: Professional sporting events increase seasonal influenza mortality in US cities

#22

Post by thex10 »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #9
rossdavidh wrote: post #3

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-hum…

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.

My impression was this common idea has not yet been found in research though -- do you have any studies to back this up?

Re: Professional sporting events increase seasonal influenza mortality in US cities

#23

Post by Scoundreller »

sweetbacon wrote: post #7
Scoundreller wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m hoping my cat’s vet and others will stop looking at me like a monster for skipping most vaccines. A cat that no longer goes outside and occupants that don’t interact with other cats basically means the cat is under total isolation.

Until it eats that bug or mouse that slid into the domicile in winter, or escapes outside by accident, etc.

And which virus would that be that lives in cats and bugs? And the cat’s too slow to catch a mouse nowadays. But it’s the same situation: most of what you’re vaccinating against is feline specific.

The cat’s free to go outside at any time, but nowadays prefers the comforts of being indoors.

The only solid argument against my strategy is nosocomial infections from the vet themselves.

Re: Professional sporting events increase seasonal influenza mortality in US cities

#24

Post by macintux »

TheGrim-888 wrote: post #2

As an analogy, opening my window increases my chance of getting skin cancer by letting more light in. Should I therefore always keep my window closed? Is the increased risk of cancer worth the benefit of having my window open? Should we all be forced to live underground, because that would definitely save a multitude of lives from skin cancer. Sports events will always increase deaths, even in non-covid times. More p…

Studying and being aware of the net impact isn’t the same as saying we need to eliminate sports.

Re: Professional sporting events increase seasonal influenza mortality in US cities

#25

Post by clairity »

threatofrain wrote: post #16
rossdavidh wrote: post #3

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-hum…

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.

> "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

Re: Professional sporting events increase seasonal influenza mortality in US cities

#26

Post by ojbyrne »

koolba wrote: post #15
seizethecheese wrote: post #12

The money quote: “The arrival of a new professional sports team in a city, and the commencement of play by that team, increases flu mortality in the city. The largest effect comes from a new NHL team. A new NHL team moving into a city and starting play causes an increase in weekly influenza mortality of 0.382 per 100,000 residents per flu season compared to cities with no professional sports teams. Based on the sampl…

There’s clearly more impact from indoor winter sports, such as hockey, vs outdoor summer sports like football.

NBA basketball is an indoor winter sport.

Re: Professional sporting events increase seasonal influenza mortality in US cities

#27

Post by tunesmith »

rossdavidh wrote: post #3

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-hum…

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.)

Re: Professional sporting events increase seasonal influenza mortality in US cities

#28

Post by acituan »

josephcsible wrote: post #17
seizethecheese wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The point was "cities increase it too", not "it's just cities and not sports teams".

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.

Re: Professional sporting events increase seasonal influenza mortality in US cities

#29

Post by seizethecheese »

thex10 wrote: post #22
throwaway894345 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My impression was this common idea has not yet been found in research though -- do you have any studies to back this up?

It’s harder to isolate than a sports team, but that there is an effect is just common sense.

Re: Professional sporting events increase seasonal influenza mortality in US cities

#30

Post by serf »

clairity wrote: post #25
threatofrain wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> "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…

>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.

these kind of statistics are not for personal caution, they're for risk assessment and public policy.

141 total infant botulism cases were reported in 2017 -- it still warranted a report and investigation work in order to assess the possibility of future problems that stem from the case, spread characteristics, etc.[0]

My point being : the rarity and generalized 'total danger' of an event should not determine whether or not it is investigated by public-policy makers and groups like the CDC/WHO.

Another facet never mentioned : sporting event-acquired flu is really low on the list of dangers to prioritize, you probably won't be bothered by it -- but the existence of yet another now-quantified danger does nudge your average 'danger score' higher. It always did, of course, but now people have actionable data about it.

So, sure, event acquired flu is really rare -- but I bet more people than before will now consider this when planning the trip with or around people with compromised immune systems.

[0]:https://www.cdc.gov/botulism/surv/2017/index.html

Post reply on HN