Researchers: Owning a dog ups odds of getting Covid by 78% + getting groceries delivered is more dangerous than going to store

LOTM677 wrote:

Could be. Or, lonely guy walking his dog talks to lonely female dog walker , she goes home with him , and they have sex without masks ?

God , we need an upvote.

huh what wrote:

As a certified dog-hater I would love for this to be true, but sample size is tiny.

But regardless, dogs are obnoxious yapping crapping biters. Don’t get a dog.

Are you single?

This is exactly why we need to mask dogs.

My god, Rojo, are you serious? The answer was so patently obvious that it didn't demand an answer from anyone, let alone by "one of Princeton's most famous students." You even answered your own question. I got "mad" because, again, I'm clinging to the idea that you didn't actually find it even remotely possible that there were causal links. You have to be trolling, right? You genuinely found it "fascinating"? I'm not going to start insulting you as a "Trust Fund" Ivy Leaguer like so many have over the years, but you're adding fuel to that fire!

Rojo is a shrewd businessman. He knows that by posting this clickbait and playing oblivious he is riling people up and gathering ad revenue. Two multi-page threads people are feverishly posting to for the opportunity to call rojo dumb. And he's just laughing all the way to the bank.

Keep up with the replies and he's going to keep dipping into the well. Just like jamin.

This is more complicated than a typical Princeton grad would understand. I have the likely answer earlier in the thread.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/10/22/us/covid-rural-us.html

The most significant part of the study is this quote:

"Having someone else in the household test positive for Covid-19 caused someone's own risk to shoot up by 60 times."

That's +6000%.

While +70% sounds large, when you are talking about only 100 people getting the virus. The number of people walking dogs, etc. that is prone to statistical variation.

My link with walking dogs, it's simply germaphobes are most likely not to have dogs and is self-selecting.

Look it's really simple. Don't get confined in close spaces with people. Everything else is just bs that's being thrown around to make people feel like they are safe.

Let's just look at the dog finding.

The statment in the article:"And living with a dog which they took for walks outside raised someone's risk by 78 per cent, the team said."

How about an obvious interpretation: taking your dog for regular, daily walks increases ones time outside the house and thereby increases the likelihood of an exposure to the virus.

Example: Bill does not own a dog and leaves the house every other day on average. Jimmy owns a dog and walks his dog outside twice every day. Therefore, by virtue of owning a dog, Jimmy leaves the house four times as much as Bill. Guess which one is more likely to come into contact with the virus?

As others have said, we would need to know more about grocery delivery practices in Spain to draw any similar conclusions., and as others have said, i wouldn't too much stock in this study for many reasons.

seattle prattle wrote:

Example: Bill does not own a dog and leaves the house every other day on average.

Imagine only leaving your house every other day. Are people still hiding like this? We did for a week or two in March when this was still new and unknown, but now that level of caution seems so silly.

Sounds like they have a "bone" to pick with our canine friends. ;)

huh what wrote:

seattle prattle wrote:

Example: Bill does not own a dog and leaves the house every other day on average.

Imagine only leaving your house every other day. Are people still hiding like this? We did for a week or two in March when this was still new and unknown, but now that level of caution seems so silly.

Yes, I live in an apartment building and most of the elderly have not left their apartments for months. They get everything delivered. Some who do go out wear masks and face shields and still wear gloves. Some won't ride in an elevator with others.

Here is the actual study:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935120311208?via%3Dihub

Do a Ctrl+F search for the word "random" or "randomly selected" in the study and you will find NADA. This was just a survey they sent out to a bunch of people (not randomly selected) and then used whatever results came back in. Terrible methodology and zero conclusions can be drawn from it.

Phillysandwich wrote:

But they seem to be right. I don't have a dog, I get groceries myself and I don't have Corona yet.

Same. Study is legit with a sample size of 2.

Euthanize dogs and ban Door Dash.

The dog effect is bogus. Lots of people in my neighborhood walk (or run) their dogs daily. None of us has come down with the virus. We are careful to not let them sniff bat butts though.

to bad most of the human population can't keep their head out of their own ass or a bat's for that matter. explains the virus in a nutshell.

I am Sam wrote:

rojo wrote:

Is it simply a result of a small sample size? Or perhaps it's just an example of correlation doesn't equal causation?

You went to an Ivy league Uni??

Come on , you tell us.

His rich parents got them in. Probably paid their way to graduating as well.

Really Rojo?!?!?! Medical reviews from the 'The Daily Mail"?

The best thing on 'The Daily Mail' are pictures of Emily Ratajkowski........not their peer reviewed medical articles.

Great clickbait, though.

This "study" increases the risk of sudden-onset autism by 78%. Beware folks