14 ms·

Was everyone wearing masks and practicing social distancing of at least 6 feet? Weren’t we told that the reopen protesters were putting people at risk by protes

Was everyone wearing masks and practicing social distancing of at least 6 feet? Weren’t we told that the reopen protesters were putting people at risk by protesting from their cars? I don’t disagree with the reason for protest, but if a church can’t be open, even outdoors, and an extended family picnic is illegal in a public park, then I am not sure the rationale for allowing protests now. The first amendment isn’t conditional on the reasons for gathering or speaking. The mayor of Oakland even supported the protests held there while just recently maintaining that “non-essential” businesses couldn’t open. I am just trying to reconcile why a small restaurant in Oakland can’t be open, but thousands of people marching in a massive group is somehow allowed. And it seems, politically speaking that a similar demographic that was just days ago telling everyone to stay home to protect us from the plague suddenly changed their public health tune as soon as something they care about was the issue. Are the lockdowns optional now? Are they situational depending on the politics of the event? Because it sure seems like it. Georgia got hammered for reopening too early, but nobody had much to say about Atlanta having massive protests over the past days. Either the lockdowns are unnecessary or they are necessary and people are putting public health at serious risk with these “large gatherings.” I wish we could reboot 2020. It’s a g-damned mess.

grupthink 6y ago
The US is less of a United Monolith and more of a Spaghetticoded States of America. Look out world, we're agile!
idealboy 6y ago
Yes, I and about 90% of the crowd wore masks. Yes, we did our best to keep 6 feet but not always, hence the masks. People were walking around with hand sanitizer to share. A global pandemic is awful, but it does not alleviate us of our civic responsibility. Was it uncomfortable and difficult? Yes. Am I glad I went? Hell yes. Black lives matter.
- craftinator 6y ago
  Plus, it's awfully hard to avoid spraying spit and snot on everyone around you when you're getting tear-gassed. I know, I've been cs-gassed many, many times. The police are not helping the situation with this tactic.
- kortilla 6y ago
  > but it does not alleviate us of our civic responsibility. The protests haven’t worked though for the last 20 years or so. IMO it’s more important to vote and promote change than to block traffic. People remember how you made them feel more easily than what you actually said. Preventing them from getting somewhere is a great way to just piss people off.
  - epakai 6y ago
    I believe protests were working, but progress has since been reversed. Police militarization is controversial. The previous administration made efforts like 'Smart on Crime' and federal laissez-faire approach to marijuana enforcement. Many of these issues were reversed in an attempt to be tough on crime again with a big push from the AG in 2017. Tensions have been stoked by things like a pardon dealt out to a sheriff who violated a court order relating to racial profiling. I have a hard time believing these acts aren't having their intended effects.
  - 7952 6y ago
    Polite protests are completely ignored. And if the political system was working for them they would not feel the need to protest.
  - learnstats2 6y ago
    Voting and "promoting" change hasn't worked either.
  - jamiewilson 6y ago
    It’s no wonder that the protests over the last 20 years haven’t worked to garner more support considering that those who do participate are treated with violent retaliation. Maybe if those of us begging to be heard were allowed to speak, and scream and chant, it would inspire more people to unite, organize and vote.
    - kortilla 6y ago
      Occupy Wall Street was not meant with violence and it was huge headline grabbing protests that went on for weeks. It didn’t do anything meaningful.
BeetleB 6y ago
> Was everyone wearing masks and practicing social distancing of at least 6 feet? Are you suggesting shooting rubber bullets is an appropriate means to enforce social distancing?
foolinaround 6y ago
Insightful questions that we need to ask ourselves... In hindsight, it seems like all that social distancing and lockdown regulations were all a power grab, and we all fell for it. Downvoting this comment is a disservice because it stifles the conversation.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  When you have a disease killing more people than malaria despite the massive lockdowns, there is no legitimate way to have a conversation. And in case you think 'yeah but the lock downs don't work' look at Vietnam: they are the first country to have local transmission outside China, and they started anti-pandemic measures in December. Results? 95 million people, 329 caught the virus, 0 deaths as of today. Not 329 thousand. 329 people. That is what this could have looked like in most of the world, if the virus had been taken seriously and if our politicians cared about human life.
  - foolinaround 6y ago
    > there is no legitimate way to have a conversation really, as in having that conversation would bring it into your home??? i dont know where this intolerant shutdown ofconversation even among the educated folks is going to lead us...
    - tsimionescu 6y ago
      There are things that it is pointless to discuss. Fire is hot, water is wet, covid19 is one of the worst diseases to hit the world in 50 years and lockdowns and isolation are an absolute necessity to prevent it becoming an even bigger tragedy. Of course there are people in the world who, genuinely or out of other interests, try to contest all sorts of things. The earth is flat, man made global warming is not happening, the earth is 6000 years old etc. That doesn't mean we need to seriously entertain these ideas just because some people do so, or claim to do so.
- mr_spothawk 6y ago
  i got so many friendships sullied by not falling for the power grab
mr_spothawk 6y ago
> the lockdowns are unnecessary precisely. it's hard to believe this isn't all a false flag.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  100k dead
  - snickell 6y ago
    0.026% dead As per normal, absolute numbers can be misleading to very smart humans when we have trouble intuiting about vast numbers like "100 million". If the goal is to convey scale accurately, its generally recommended to default report population related measures as per capita percentages. That doesn't mean other measures can't be relevant, but the choice really should be very carefully weighed in order to convey accuracy, not to increase shock value. The fear is that this number (0.026%) will seem too low, which is why we're trying to use numbers like 100,000 in order to convince people to continue acting safely. The real message is: this number is so low BECAUSE we've all been working hard to keep it this low. That's a hard message because its nuanced, but its not misleading. I don't know if its as persuasive, its probably not, but that doesn't make "100,000" not misleading when used for shock. 0.026% is a number that means "most people don't know anyone well who died of covid19", and "many people aren't even directly acquainted with anyone that died of covid19". That's because the social distancing is working. If it weren't working, based on covid19 survival stats, the human feeling would be "most people are directly acquainted with one or two people that died of covid19". That's a very different feeling. TBH, its still not exactly "black death in the middle ages" type of feeling, but the direct human impact would be MUCH larger. WITH social distancing, at the present death rate, Covid19 in the US is killing about 1/4 the number of people daily of Cancer+Heart Disease. WITHOUT social distancing (i.e. run amuk), based on "when hospitals were overwhelmed in some italian cities" survival rate, it looks like it'd be daily killing about 2x Cancer+HeartDiesase. So social distancing is having big impact, and a really good job everyone, we are gaining a LOT of saved lives for our sacrifices. All that said, I do wonder if 2x the daily deaths of Cancer+HeartDisease tips into "unthinkable to even openly discuss the tradeoff between quality of life and safety" territory? At what death rate do we consider completely changing the world as we know it? 0.00001%? 0.00001%? 0.001%? 0.01%? 0.1%? 1%? And at what death rate do we surpress discussion of NOT making the tradeoff as too dangerous (risking thoughtless noncompliance)? 0.001% 0.01%? 0.1%? 1%? 10%? Lets say you were one of the leaders of a small fishing village without mass media (i.e. without big numbers), and somebody convinced you that you had a choice: 1) Everyone stays in their huts for 6 mos to a year with all the impacts and suffering that entails OR 2) An extra person will die this year (beyond the usual 3 who die every year). It could be anyone, but you're told its most likely to be somebody who would die in the next 5 years. Does that seem like a no brainer? It doesn't feel like one to me. That would be a hard decision to me. I think I'd go for sitting in the huts, but if somebody wanted to discuss the decision with me.... I think that would be pretty reasonable. If the whole village wanted to get together and really talk it out and vote rather than just letting the leader(s) make the call, I think that'd make a lot of sense. Personally? I think I'd vote "everyone stays in their huts" but I would absolutely NOT vote "can't be openly discussed because the discussion is too dangerous".
rallison 6y ago
Nobody likes that these protests are likely to lead to increased transmission. It's a truly terrible choice. People are making that choice because these protests get to such a fundamental problem in our society that they are still worth it, despite the cost. And, as has been mentioned, mask usage is high, and these protests are outside. It doesn't eliminate the risk, but many, many people are still trying to minimize the public health risk. So, yes, context matters. I would absolutely argue the value in the being part of the strongest push against police brutality in decades, that just might result in systemic change, is incredibly more worthy than virtually any other activity. It does not mean there is no public health cost. It does mean it is a tragic choice to have to make.
- dchichkov 6y ago
  Work. Volunteer. Take care of your family. Vote. It's a bit of a bad timing for protests right now - easily exploited, will likely result in negative change.
  - celticninja 6y ago
    perhaps ask the US police if they could kill unarmed black males at more appropriate times maybe?
    - 0xBA5ED 6y ago
      The officer responsible was arrested and charged with murder. The other officers on the scene were all fired. Can you explain to me what the protest is about?
      - TulliusCicero 6y ago
        That it happened in the first place? That black people are treated worse by police as the norm?
        0xBA5ED 6y ago

grupthink 6y ago

The US is less of a United Monolith and more of a Spaghetticoded States of America. Look out world, we're agile!

idealboy 6y ago

Yes, I and about 90% of the crowd wore masks. Yes, we did our best to keep 6 feet but not always, hence the masks. People were walking around with hand sanitizer to share. A global pandemic is awful, but it does not alleviate us of our civic responsibility. Was it uncomfortable and difficult? Yes. Am I glad I went? Hell yes. Black lives matter.

craftinator 6y ago
Plus, it's awfully hard to avoid spraying spit and snot on everyone around you when you're getting tear-gassed. I know, I've been cs-gassed many, many times. The police are not helping the situation with this tactic.
kortilla 6y ago
> but it does not alleviate us of our civic responsibility. The protests haven’t worked though for the last 20 years or so. IMO it’s more important to vote and promote change than to block traffic. People remember how you made them feel more easily than what you actually said. Preventing them from getting somewhere is a great way to just piss people off.
- epakai 6y ago
  I believe protests were working, but progress has since been reversed. Police militarization is controversial. The previous administration made efforts like 'Smart on Crime' and federal laissez-faire approach to marijuana enforcement. Many of these issues were reversed in an attempt to be tough on crime again with a big push from the AG in 2017. Tensions have been stoked by things like a pardon dealt out to a sheriff who violated a court order relating to racial profiling. I have a hard time believing these acts aren't having their intended effects.
- 7952 6y ago
  Polite protests are completely ignored. And if the political system was working for them they would not feel the need to protest.
- learnstats2 6y ago
  Voting and "promoting" change hasn't worked either.
- jamiewilson 6y ago
  It’s no wonder that the protests over the last 20 years haven’t worked to garner more support considering that those who do participate are treated with violent retaliation. Maybe if those of us begging to be heard were allowed to speak, and scream and chant, it would inspire more people to unite, organize and vote.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    Occupy Wall Street was not meant with violence and it was huge headline grabbing protests that went on for weeks. It didn’t do anything meaningful.

BeetleB 6y ago

> Was everyone wearing masks and practicing social distancing of at least 6 feet? Are you suggesting shooting rubber bullets is an appropriate means to enforce social distancing?

foolinaround 6y ago

Insightful questions that we need to ask ourselves... In hindsight, it seems like all that social distancing and lockdown regulations were all a power grab, and we all fell for it. Downvoting this comment is a disservice because it stifles the conversation.

tsimionescu 6y ago
When you have a disease killing more people than malaria despite the massive lockdowns, there is no legitimate way to have a conversation. And in case you think 'yeah but the lock downs don't work' look at Vietnam: they are the first country to have local transmission outside China, and they started anti-pandemic measures in December. Results? 95 million people, 329 caught the virus, 0 deaths as of today. Not 329 thousand. 329 people. That is what this could have looked like in most of the world, if the virus had been taken seriously and if our politicians cared about human life.
- foolinaround 6y ago
  > there is no legitimate way to have a conversation really, as in having that conversation would bring it into your home??? i dont know where this intolerant shutdown ofconversation even among the educated folks is going to lead us...
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    There are things that it is pointless to discuss. Fire is hot, water is wet, covid19 is one of the worst diseases to hit the world in 50 years and lockdowns and isolation are an absolute necessity to prevent it becoming an even bigger tragedy. Of course there are people in the world who, genuinely or out of other interests, try to contest all sorts of things. The earth is flat, man made global warming is not happening, the earth is 6000 years old etc. That doesn't mean we need to seriously entertain these ideas just because some people do so, or claim to do so.
mr_spothawk 6y ago
i got so many friendships sullied by not falling for the power grab

mr_spothawk 6y ago

> the lockdowns are unnecessary precisely. it's hard to believe this isn't all a false flag.

mhh__ 6y ago
100k dead
- snickell 6y ago
  0.026% dead As per normal, absolute numbers can be misleading to very smart humans when we have trouble intuiting about vast numbers like "100 million". If the goal is to convey scale accurately, its generally recommended to default report population related measures as per capita percentages. That doesn't mean other measures can't be relevant, but the choice really should be very carefully weighed in order to convey accuracy, not to increase shock value. The fear is that this number (0.026%) will seem too low, which is why we're trying to use numbers like 100,000 in order to convince people to continue acting safely. The real message is: this number is so low BECAUSE we've all been working hard to keep it this low. That's a hard message because its nuanced, but its not misleading. I don't know if its as persuasive, its probably not, but that doesn't make "100,000" not misleading when used for shock. 0.026% is a number that means "most people don't know anyone well who died of covid19", and "many people aren't even directly acquainted with anyone that died of covid19". That's because the social distancing is working. If it weren't working, based on covid19 survival stats, the human feeling would be "most people are directly acquainted with one or two people that died of covid19". That's a very different feeling. TBH, its still not exactly "black death in the middle ages" type of feeling, but the direct human impact would be MUCH larger. WITH social distancing, at the present death rate, Covid19 in the US is killing about 1/4 the number of people daily of Cancer+Heart Disease. WITHOUT social distancing (i.e. run amuk), based on "when hospitals were overwhelmed in some italian cities" survival rate, it looks like it'd be daily killing about 2x Cancer+HeartDiesase. So social distancing is having big impact, and a really good job everyone, we are gaining a LOT of saved lives for our sacrifices. All that said, I do wonder if 2x the daily deaths of Cancer+HeartDisease tips into "unthinkable to even openly discuss the tradeoff between quality of life and safety" territory? At what death rate do we consider completely changing the world as we know it? 0.00001%? 0.00001%? 0.001%? 0.01%? 0.1%? 1%? And at what death rate do we surpress discussion of NOT making the tradeoff as too dangerous (risking thoughtless noncompliance)? 0.001% 0.01%? 0.1%? 1%? 10%? Lets say you were one of the leaders of a small fishing village without mass media (i.e. without big numbers), and somebody convinced you that you had a choice: 1) Everyone stays in their huts for 6 mos to a year with all the impacts and suffering that entails OR 2) An extra person will die this year (beyond the usual 3 who die every year). It could be anyone, but you're told its most likely to be somebody who would die in the next 5 years. Does that seem like a no brainer? It doesn't feel like one to me. That would be a hard decision to me. I think I'd go for sitting in the huts, but if somebody wanted to discuss the decision with me.... I think that would be pretty reasonable. If the whole village wanted to get together and really talk it out and vote rather than just letting the leader(s) make the call, I think that'd make a lot of sense. Personally? I think I'd vote "everyone stays in their huts" but I would absolutely NOT vote "can't be openly discussed because the discussion is too dangerous".

rallison 6y ago

Nobody likes that these protests are likely to lead to increased transmission. It's a truly terrible choice. People are making that choice because these protests get to such a fundamental problem in our society that they are still worth it, despite the cost. And, as has been mentioned, mask usage is high, and these protests are outside. It doesn't eliminate the risk, but many, many people are still trying to minimize the public health risk. So, yes, context matters. I would absolutely argue the value in the being part of the strongest push against police brutality in decades, that just might result in systemic change, is incredibly more worthy than virtually any other activity. It does not mean there is no public health cost. It does mean it is a tragic choice to have to make.

dchichkov 6y ago
Work. Volunteer. Take care of your family. Vote. It's a bit of a bad timing for protests right now - easily exploited, will likely result in negative change.
- celticninja 6y ago
  perhaps ask the US police if they could kill unarmed black males at more appropriate times maybe?
  - 0xBA5ED 6y ago
    The officer responsible was arrested and charged with murder. The other officers on the scene were all fired. Can you explain to me what the protest is about?
    - TulliusCicero 6y ago
      That it happened in the first place? That black people are treated worse by police as the norm?
      - 0xBA5ED 6y ago