6 ms·

Almost every bit of protesting footage I've seen has the majority of people wearing masks, which is a huge deal. In the footage of the motorcycle rally in sturg

Almost every bit of protesting footage I've seen has the majority of people wearing masks, which is a huge deal. In the footage of the motorcycle rally in sturgis, I have seen almost no one wearing masks. On top of this, people protesting were almost exclusively outdoors whereas there are tons of stores, bars, etc in sturgis that people went in. Your comment is just ridiculous political pandering, trying to focus the topic other events that aren't similar in the slightest.

BrandonMarc 6y ago
I saw lots of protest images in June, and July, and lately, featuring very few people with masks.
- bananabreakfast 6y ago
  Then you saw a set of images curated to support a specific narrative not representative of the larger group.
  - liability 6y ago
    I live in Seattle and visited CHAZ/CHOP. While most protestors had masks, a large number of them had the mask below their nose and frequently not covering their mouth either. Nobody curated what I witnessed firsthand. I think the biggest difference is the protests skewed young and motorcycle rallies skew boomer.
    - phobosanomaly 6y ago
      I have zero data to support this, but I've thought about it a lot and it seems to me that the majority of respiratory droplet secretion would be through the mouth during vocalization as a result of the vocal cords vibrating. +1 for the boomer skew.
stateofnounion 6y ago
Thanks for citing that widely available and incredibly reliable data set of "things that you've seen and now try to remember from the past few months."
crisdux 6y ago
Masks are NOT a fool proof solution. Why do people think mask wearing removes all risk? Masks are just one component. Packed crowds in 90 degree heat with yelling and plenty of physical contact are just as worthy of scrutiny. Now for my generally useless tidbit, In my city it was very hot and humid during the early summer protests. Mask compliance was probably about 50/50, with most of the folks not complying were wearing them incorrectly or taking them on and off repeatedly. Demonstrators used the time as an opportunity to socialize and share meals, with lots of incidental physical contact.
- kube-system 6y ago
  Who said masks removes all risk? The data and official guidance I have seen supports the idea that masks (and being outdoors) significantly reduces risk.
  - crisdux 6y ago
    I interpreted the comment I replied to suggest that masks remove a lot of the risks by itself. Is that not a fair reading of that comment? The data I've seen suggests that being outdoor reduces risks, I have not need any data or studies that compare being outdoor with or without a mask. I'd love to read your studies if you have them.
slg 6y ago
>On top of this, people protesting were almost exclusively outdoors whereas there are tons of stores, bars, etc in sturgis that people went in. The inside/outside dynamic is not the only part of the location that matters for the dangers these events present. The big protests mainly occurred in big cities and were mainly attended by locals. The Sturgis rally happens in the middle of nowhere, people come from all over, and then head back home to places that are generally more rural. Sturgis is therefore much more likely to spread the virus to people and places who wouldn't have had much exposure otherwise. Also we can't have this conversation while ignoring the false equivalency of these two events. There is a fundamental difference in the urgency of attending a protest versus attending the Sturgis rally. If they both presented the exact same danger to the population, Sturgis would still be a more egregious gathering due to being an entertainment event. We are in the middle of a pandemic. We can cut down on these large entertainment gatherings whether it is Sturgis or Coachella.
- dmurray 6y ago
  Are you arguing that the protests are more valuable because they are a political event, or because they are a political event that you agree with? I'm interested in whether you would make the same argument in favour of, say, a Trump campaign rally.
  - slg 6y ago
    Protests are a political call to action. A political rally is more a celebration of a specific political personality. Those two also do not have the same level of urgency. I am currently against holding any large political rally regardless of the candidate. I am open to protests from the right if they are willing to conduct them in a manner similar to how the recent protests from the left have been conducted.
- LiNeXT 6y ago
  > There is a fundamental difference in the urgency of attending a protest versus attending the Sturgis rally. The constitution deliberately makes no such distinction.
m0zg 6y ago
They're also yelling, breathing heavily and not social distancing, negating any value masks might have had. Your message illustrates perfectly the hypocrisy of liberal political establishment wrt the riots.

BrandonMarc 6y ago

I saw lots of protest images in June, and July, and lately, featuring very few people with masks.

bananabreakfast 6y ago
Then you saw a set of images curated to support a specific narrative not representative of the larger group.
- liability 6y ago
  I live in Seattle and visited CHAZ/CHOP. While most protestors had masks, a large number of them had the mask below their nose and frequently not covering their mouth either. Nobody curated what I witnessed firsthand. I think the biggest difference is the protests skewed young and motorcycle rallies skew boomer.
  - phobosanomaly 6y ago
    I have zero data to support this, but I've thought about it a lot and it seems to me that the majority of respiratory droplet secretion would be through the mouth during vocalization as a result of the vocal cords vibrating. +1 for the boomer skew.

stateofnounion 6y ago

Thanks for citing that widely available and incredibly reliable data set of "things that you've seen and now try to remember from the past few months."

crisdux 6y ago

Masks are NOT a fool proof solution. Why do people think mask wearing removes all risk? Masks are just one component. Packed crowds in 90 degree heat with yelling and plenty of physical contact are just as worthy of scrutiny. Now for my generally useless tidbit, In my city it was very hot and humid during the early summer protests. Mask compliance was probably about 50/50, with most of the folks not complying were wearing them incorrectly or taking them on and off repeatedly. Demonstrators used the time as an opportunity to socialize and share meals, with lots of incidental physical contact.

kube-system 6y ago
Who said masks removes all risk? The data and official guidance I have seen supports the idea that masks (and being outdoors) significantly reduces risk.
- crisdux 6y ago
  I interpreted the comment I replied to suggest that masks remove a lot of the risks by itself. Is that not a fair reading of that comment? The data I've seen suggests that being outdoor reduces risks, I have not need any data or studies that compare being outdoor with or without a mask. I'd love to read your studies if you have them.

slg 6y ago

>On top of this, people protesting were almost exclusively outdoors whereas there are tons of stores, bars, etc in sturgis that people went in. The inside/outside dynamic is not the only part of the location that matters for the dangers these events present. The big protests mainly occurred in big cities and were mainly attended by locals. The Sturgis rally happens in the middle of nowhere, people come from all over, and then head back home to places that are generally more rural. Sturgis is therefore much more likely to spread the virus to people and places who wouldn't have had much exposure otherwise. Also we can't have this conversation while ignoring the false equivalency of these two events. There is a fundamental difference in the urgency of attending a protest versus attending the Sturgis rally. If they both presented the exact same danger to the population, Sturgis would still be a more egregious gathering due to being an entertainment event. We are in the middle of a pandemic. We can cut down on these large entertainment gatherings whether it is Sturgis or Coachella.

dmurray 6y ago
Are you arguing that the protests are more valuable because they are a political event, or because they are a political event that you agree with? I'm interested in whether you would make the same argument in favour of, say, a Trump campaign rally.
- slg 6y ago
  Protests are a political call to action. A political rally is more a celebration of a specific political personality. Those two also do not have the same level of urgency. I am currently against holding any large political rally regardless of the candidate. I am open to protests from the right if they are willing to conduct them in a manner similar to how the recent protests from the left have been conducted.
LiNeXT 6y ago
> There is a fundamental difference in the urgency of attending a protest versus attending the Sturgis rally. The constitution deliberately makes no such distinction.

m0zg 6y ago

They're also yelling, breathing heavily and not social distancing, negating any value masks might have had. Your message illustrates perfectly the hypocrisy of liberal political establishment wrt the riots.