5 ms·

A protest of 600k people will result in between 200 and 1100 eventual deaths

53 points by elsewhen 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jakelazaroff 6y ago
Title quibble: coronavirus deaths, specifically, not as a property of protests in general.
- LUmBULtERA 6y ago
  Also, the estimate is 200-1100 coronavirus deaths per day as a result of the protests, not 200-1100 total deaths. "...200-1100 deaths per day of protests."
  - xsmasher 6y ago
    I read that as "for each day or protests," not "each day going forward."
Traster 6y ago
This is a very interesting thread with a lot of elements to it. One of the interesting take-aways from it is that the reason this effect is so high is because the US is doing such a poor job of controlling COVID in the first place - so a small increase in infections causes a huge long tail of spreading. The people who get infected at the protest go home and then the disease spreads from them for a long time because the ordinary measures to control the virus aren't very effective. In a country doing a better job of dealing with the virus in the first place this effect would be massively reduced.
- TechBro8615 6y ago
  Could this be addressed by advising people who have attended a protest to self-quarantine for two weeks? I imagine that if Trump held a press conference with Dr Birx and Dr Fauci, where they advised protestors to stay home for two weeks after attending a protest, he might face some backlash. But at the same time, he gets backlash for “mishandling the Coronavirus.” So it’s politically untenable for him to give the scientific advice to stay home after protesting. He’s damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t. IMO this reveals some hypocrisy on the part of the media pundits painting these narratives, but I digress...
  - Traster 6y ago
    Well I don't think we should be making rules for protests. The risks with protests are exactly the same as the risks on public transport or visiting a coffee shop. You risk coming into contact with someone who is infected. That's why the contact tracing is so important. If someone starts suggesting you should isolate simply for attending a rally then the obvious question is should you isolate if you visit a packed casino, or even the Republican National Convention?
dTal 6y ago
I think the framing of police brutality and racism as a public health issue is one I've not seen before. It's quite interesting because it gives an apolitical basis for assessing the question of whether the protests are a good idea (albeit one that doesn't take into account all factors, such as discrimination that doesn't lead to physical injury).
totony 6y ago
It's interesting how manifestations about the lockdown were looked down by the majority of the people I've interacted with due to the danger of spreading the disease, but I have not seen most people associate that same risk to the blm protests. Nor have I seen the egoist label being thrown around. I highly dislike the polarisation people have come to; if I agree with you it's ok, if I disagree you, I question your right to protest and label you an egoist.
- kerkeslager 6y ago
  > It's interesting how manifestations about the lockdown were looked down by the majority of the people I've interacted with due to the danger of spreading the disease, but I have not seen most people associate that same risk to the blm protests. This sentence is almost incoherent, but if what you're trying to say is that people aren't recognizing that BLM protests might spread coronavirus: here's a prominent Democratic leader associating the BLM protests with spreading the coronavirus: https://newyork.cbslocal.com/video/4581115-gov-cuomo-again-urges-protesters-to-get-tested-for-coronavirus/ https://newyork.cbslocal.com/video/4581115-gov-cuomo-again-u...
  - TechBro8615 6y ago
    If you’re going to cherry pick opinions, you may as well include the letter from 1,200 health “experts” who effectively called the protests a worthwhile risk. https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/05/health/health-care-open-letter-protests-coronavirus-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/05/health/health-care-open-lette...
    - kerkeslager 6y ago
      totony said, "I have not seen most people associate that same risk to the blm protests." Seems like you just posted 1200 more people who have associated Coronavirus risk with the BLM protests. You may disagree with people about whether the risk of spreading Coronavirus is worth it, but don't accuse the left of not recognizing that there are risks.
  - 6y ago
squarefoot 6y ago
> but I have not seen most people associate that same risk to the blm protests. They know of the risks, but they also know that racism, fascism, police brutality, and subsequent immunity for the latter, are much much much worse to the society than Covid-19, HIV, Ebola and all other combined together, including cancer (1). They don't go away like some virii, they can't be cured like some virii, they don't need physical/blood contact or vicinity to spread, and no lockdown would reduce the risks of "infection". All it needs in their case is corrupt rulers, corrupt press and corrupt law enforcement officers, all enablers that can do damage from whatever distance they wish. (1- if any of you have a similar serious illness I'm truly sorry about that, but please don't lecture me on the sufferings compared to getting hit by a baton. I have direct detailed accounts from who helps every f'ing day terminal cancer patients and I'm well aware of it, so please try to understand my point instead, thanks)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- totony 6y ago
  My main point wasn't avout the awareness of the risks (although I have not seen muvh coverage on it). I understand the risk-analysis, but the people protesting/disagreeing with the lockdown also did the same thing. There is a sharp contrast in how the blm risk analysis is accepted whereas people were denying that the early protesters had even the right to make that analysis.
ac29 6y ago
Its important to take this napkin math with a grain of salt, as even the author admits they could be wildly off with even a small change in transmission rates: "Swapping R0 from 0.95 to 0.9 would decrease estimated downstream infections from 54k-108k to 30k-60k and estimated downstream deaths from 270-1080 to 150-600. Generally, these back-of-the-envelop calculations should be taken with a huge grain of salt. We don't yet have data." There is also an unstated assumption that none of these people would get infected if they didnt attend the protests, which seems like a big omission.

53 points by elsewhen 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

jakelazaroff 6y ago

Title quibble: coronavirus deaths, specifically, not as a property of protests in general.

LUmBULtERA 6y ago
Also, the estimate is 200-1100 coronavirus deaths per day as a result of the protests, not 200-1100 total deaths. "...200-1100 deaths per day of protests."
- xsmasher 6y ago
  I read that as "for each day or protests," not "each day going forward."

Traster 6y ago

This is a very interesting thread with a lot of elements to it. One of the interesting take-aways from it is that the reason this effect is so high is because the US is doing such a poor job of controlling COVID in the first place - so a small increase in infections causes a huge long tail of spreading. The people who get infected at the protest go home and then the disease spreads from them for a long time because the ordinary measures to control the virus aren't very effective. In a country doing a better job of dealing with the virus in the first place this effect would be massively reduced.

TechBro8615 6y ago
Could this be addressed by advising people who have attended a protest to self-quarantine for two weeks? I imagine that if Trump held a press conference with Dr Birx and Dr Fauci, where they advised protestors to stay home for two weeks after attending a protest, he might face some backlash. But at the same time, he gets backlash for “mishandling the Coronavirus.” So it’s politically untenable for him to give the scientific advice to stay home after protesting. He’s damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t. IMO this reveals some hypocrisy on the part of the media pundits painting these narratives, but I digress...
- Traster 6y ago
  Well I don't think we should be making rules for protests. The risks with protests are exactly the same as the risks on public transport or visiting a coffee shop. You risk coming into contact with someone who is infected. That's why the contact tracing is so important. If someone starts suggesting you should isolate simply for attending a rally then the obvious question is should you isolate if you visit a packed casino, or even the Republican National Convention?

dTal 6y ago

I think the framing of police brutality and racism as a public health issue is one I've not seen before. It's quite interesting because it gives an apolitical basis for assessing the question of whether the protests are a good idea (albeit one that doesn't take into account all factors, such as discrimination that doesn't lead to physical injury).

totony 6y ago

It's interesting how manifestations about the lockdown were looked down by the majority of the people I've interacted with due to the danger of spreading the disease, but I have not seen most people associate that same risk to the blm protests. Nor have I seen the egoist label being thrown around. I highly dislike the polarisation people have come to; if I agree with you it's ok, if I disagree you, I question your right to protest and label you an egoist.

kerkeslager 6y ago
> It's interesting how manifestations about the lockdown were looked down by the majority of the people I've interacted with due to the danger of spreading the disease, but I have not seen most people associate that same risk to the blm protests. This sentence is almost incoherent, but if what you're trying to say is that people aren't recognizing that BLM protests might spread coronavirus: here's a prominent Democratic leader associating the BLM protests with spreading the coronavirus: https://newyork.cbslocal.com/video/4581115-gov-cuomo-again-urges-protesters-to-get-tested-for-coronavirus/ https://newyork.cbslocal.com/video/4581115-gov-cuomo-again-u...
- TechBro8615 6y ago
  If you’re going to cherry pick opinions, you may as well include the letter from 1,200 health “experts” who effectively called the protests a worthwhile risk. https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/05/health/health-care-open-letter-protests-coronavirus-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/05/health/health-care-open-lette...
  - kerkeslager 6y ago
    totony said, "I have not seen most people associate that same risk to the blm protests." Seems like you just posted 1200 more people who have associated Coronavirus risk with the BLM protests. You may disagree with people about whether the risk of spreading Coronavirus is worth it, but don't accuse the left of not recognizing that there are risks.
- 6y ago

squarefoot 6y ago

> but I have not seen most people associate that same risk to the blm protests. They know of the risks, but they also know that racism, fascism, police brutality, and subsequent immunity for the latter, are much much much worse to the society than Covid-19, HIV, Ebola and all other combined together, including cancer (1). They don't go away like some virii, they can't be cured like some virii, they don't need physical/blood contact or vicinity to spread, and no lockdown would reduce the risks of "infection". All it needs in their case is corrupt rulers, corrupt press and corrupt law enforcement officers, all enablers that can do damage from whatever distance they wish. (1- if any of you have a similar serious illness I'm truly sorry about that, but please don't lecture me on the sufferings compared to getting hit by a baton. I have direct detailed accounts from who helps every f'ing day terminal cancer patients and I'm well aware of it, so please try to understand my point instead, thanks)

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
totony 6y ago
My main point wasn't avout the awareness of the risks (although I have not seen muvh coverage on it). I understand the risk-analysis, but the people protesting/disagreeing with the lockdown also did the same thing. There is a sharp contrast in how the blm risk analysis is accepted whereas people were denying that the early protesters had even the right to make that analysis.

ac29 6y ago

Its important to take this napkin math with a grain of salt, as even the author admits they could be wildly off with even a small change in transmission rates: "Swapping R0 from 0.95 to 0.9 would decrease estimated downstream infections from 54k-108k to 30k-60k and estimated downstream deaths from 270-1080 to 150-600. Generally, these back-of-the-envelop calculations should be taken with a huge grain of salt. We don't yet have data." There is also an unstated assumption that none of these people would get infected if they didnt attend the protests, which seems like a big omission.