As Americans await Election Day 2020 next Tuesday, there’s yet another hurdle to overcome, it appears.

On Saturday, such disparate media outlets as TMZ and Axios began pushing a major, new study claiming that a series of rallies for President Donald Trump over the summer acted as “super-spreader” events for COVID and even led to the deaths of over 700 people.

TMZ’s headline screamed:

DONALD TRUMP RALLIES LED TO 30,000 COVID CASES, 700 DEATHS … According To Stanford Study

While Axios concentrated on the scary, hypothetical body count:

Study: Trump campaign rallies likely led to over 700 COVID-related deaths

The Stanford study’s introduction begins by explaining the scientists’ rationale for it, writing that

The CDC has advised that large in-person events, particularly in settings where participants do not wear masks or practice social distancing, pose a substantial risk of further contagion (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020). There is reason to fear that such gatherings can serve as “superspreader events,” severely undermining efforts to control the pandemic (Dave et al., 2020).

The study reads, in part:

The purpose of this study is to shed light on these issues by studying the impact of election rallies held by President Donald Trump’s campaign between June 20th and September 30th, 2020.

[…]

We identify a set of counties that are comparable to the event county at the pertinent point in time, based at least in part on the trajectory of confirmed COVID-19 cases prior to the rally date. We then estimate the statistical relationship among those counties between subsequent COVID-19 cases and various conditions, such as pre-existing COVID-19 prevalence and pandemic-related restrictions, along with demographic characteristics. We use this relationship to predict the post-event incidence of new confirmed COVID-19 cases for the event county.

But the researchers caution that their study is not the same as the kind epidemiologists run: (emphasis added)

Although our methods involve prediction models, it is important to understand that the nature of these predictions differ in critical ways from the types of predictions generated by epidemiological models.

[…]

In contrast, our approach is to predict outcomes in an event jurisdiction between periods t and t0 based not only on that jurisdiction’s history up until t, but also on the complete histories of comparable counties through period t0. In other words, our predictions employ “future” data for comparable counties, whereas epidemiological models do not.

Oh, and there’s this tiny point, too:

The study has not been peer reviewed yet.

Twitter user Sean The Producer noticed the problem with this study “proving” the Trump rallies are “superspreader events.”

He writes:

They ran statistical models, based on the number of people at the rallies. None of the data in this study is based on actual testing for the virus in attendees or their contacts.

They ran statistical models, based on the number of people at the rallies. None of the data in this study is based on actual testing for the virus in attendees or their contacts. https://t.co/PF99ABEhJ3

— Sean The Producer (@SeanTheProducr) October 31, 2020

That’s right. Just like the lefty, scientific community uses models to show climate change is set to destroy the planet, now they’re using “garbage in, garbage out” programs to give their friends in the media ammunition to call Pres. Trump and anyone else on the Right uncaring and callous. And obviously, they all want Americans to die in large numbers.

This comes after a major study from Denmark, showing face mask usage doesn’t stop the spread of COVID, was “rejected by multiple academic journals” indoctrinated in the High Church of the Wuhan Coronavirus, as my colleague Bonchie shared in a piece a week ago. [see: Major Denmark Study May Show Masks Are Largely Ineffective, ‘Science’ Promptly Censors It]

Can you really blame the people still desperately trying to get Sleepy Joe and Kamala Harris into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, though? It’s no surprise, really, when Pres. Trump has 14 events scheduled between Saturday and Election Day eve, while former VP Biden has… 3?

Notice what viewers aren’t being shown, in images and videos, of this weekend’s jaunt for Veep nominee Harris through the Lone Star State.

One allegedly shows a ‘Texas-sized welcome’ for vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris…

Thank you for the Texas-sized welcome. Let’s get this done. pic.twitter.com/geR67zhzQW

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) October 31, 2020

…at a Rio Grande Valley event in Democrat primary loser Julian Castro’s neck of the woods, McAllen, TX:

No better way to end a Texas rally for @KamalaHarris than some Baila Esta Cumbia (@JulianCastro’s campaign walk off song)! pic.twitter.com/iCvSbdpMug

— Sawyer Hackett (@SawyerHackett) October 30, 2020

Here’s the only clip of any “crowd” I could find from Harris’ three events; there appear to be just over 10 people at this Fort Worth rally.

pic.twitter.com/8tei11KLaE

— Worx (@worxexell) October 31, 2020

That’s just plain embarrassing. If I were on the Left, I would try to explain away my preferred candidate and his campaign’s lack of enthusiasm, by saying it’s in the name of the public’s safety, too.

H/T: Sean The Producer