5 ms·

> Nearly 1 in 4 (24%) believed in March that some in the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC, are exaggerating the danger posed by the virus

> Nearly 1 in 4 (24%) believed in March that some in the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC, are exaggerating the danger posed by the virus in order to damage Donald Trump’s presidency, which increased to 32% in July; Even I believe that one. It really didn't help when public health officials banned outdoor gatherings, but BLM protests were OK.

ReptileMan 6y ago
I don't know whether this is true, but I think that the freak out and measures are grossly disproportionate compared to the danger of the virus.
PestoDiRucola 6y ago
While I agree with what BLM protests were protesting against, they did pick the worst possible time to do so. Especially because, numbers in hand, COVID has killed and will kill more people than police brutality would.
- xphilter 6y ago
  I don't really follow your comment. Here's a paper that concludes that BLM protests had (have) no effect on Covid case growth in the population: https://www.nber.org/papers/w27408 https://www.nber.org/papers/w27408 "Likewise, while it is possible that the protests caused an increase in the spread of COVID-19 among those who attended the protests, we demonstrate that the protests had little effect on the spread of COVID- 19 for the entire population of the counties with protests during the more than five weeks following protest onset."
  - eej71 6y ago
    I think many people look at that logic (that those large BLM protests were safe) and wonder why it can't be applied to more mundane activities such as the US Open. It comes across as blatantly partisan and not the least bit driven by the science.
    - strictnein 6y ago
      Exactly this. If it's safe to march and yell and protest (all good things), it's safe to stand or sit quietly someplace.
    - xphilter 6y ago
      I get that, but there are differences. With something like the US Open, you have people staying in the same spot for long periods of time in a sheltered building (maybe some have more winds, maybe some don't). You have shared indoor bathrooms, indoor vending, sheltered entrances/exists. Nevertheless, I agree with the larger point that leadership should have provided more outdoor activities to draw people away from bars and restaurants.
    - rsynnott 6y ago
      Trouble with events like that is that it encourages people to travel, stay in hotels, and 'socialise' (in the "drinking large amounts of inhibition-lowering alcohol in the company of others" sense). The event itself would probably not be that dangerous; it's everything around it.
      - eej71 6y ago
        The same can be said of the protests. The participants in many of those activities were not just local to the city. They too traveled. I could understand reducing the attendance at the US Open to a lower level. But to set it to zero while not doing the same for any protests... it undermines credibility. Also, consider another example. New York State imposed a travel quarantine on those traveling from other states. Well, except for the MTV Music Awards. Those don't count. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mtv-video-music-awards-new-york-city-no-quarantine/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mtv-video-music-awards-new-york... Why? Because I think the political sensibilities of the award recepients better aligns with those who granted this waiver. This creates an aire of political favoritsm. It's very damaging.
  - strictnein 6y ago
    > had (have) no effect > it is possible that the protests caused an increase in the spread > had little effect
    - xphilter 6y ago
      "had little effect" is equivalent to no effect; read the paper. "Trends between the treated and non-treated counties are virtually identical prior to the protests. This is reassuring and suggests that the timing of the protests is not correlated with trends in COVID-19 case growth or unobservable determinants of case growth." I don't know what you're quibbling over. If we're reaching for absolute zero levels of covid spread, then sure protests had a giant effect (just from logic). That's not practical; people need to go outside. And per the "it is possible that the protests caused an increase in the spread" is in reference to the article's earlier hypothesis that because people were leaving their homes to protest, you would expect them to get covid at a higher rate than someone who never left their house. The article didn't have any direct evidence that that was actually the case though.
helen___keller 6y ago
Given the evidence that the actual truth is that there is a significant danger posed by the virus (see 200k dead Americans), a more logical conclusion here is not overstating the risk of the virus, but understating the risk of BLM protests.
- ReptileMan 6y ago
  Can you prove that all of those 200000 will be alive today? You can expect 3 million and a change funerals each year with a population like us.
  - Loughla 6y ago
    Wait. Is your argument that 200k people dying specifically from this virus isn't a big deal, because people die from other things, too? How and why did you form that belief? That just doesn't make sense.
    - insickness 6y ago
      A large percentage of those people would have died within the next year anyway. Covid Survival Rate: 0-19 years - 99.997% 20-49 years - 99.98% 50-69 years - 99.5% 70+ years - 94.6%
      - klyrs 6y ago
        Your mom will die soon. You have a choice between now, and a year from now. What do you prefer?
        insickness 6y ago
        A year from now.
      - Loughla 6y ago
        So, again, your particular argument is - we shouldn't try to do anything about covid, because people already die from things? What a complete nonsense argument. What is different about covid that means we shouldn't try to treat it? We treat cancer, and genetic diseases, and the flu. We actively try to avoid death for a million other reasons. Why should we just throw our hands up with this one and act like it's not there?
kube-system 6y ago
Legally speaking, that decision was solid. Governments have strong and broad authority to regulate commerce, but their power to regulate protests is relatively narrow.
- insickness 6y ago
  Their power to regulate protests is about the same as their power to regulate religious gatherings, which they had no problem doing.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    Directly, yes. Effectively, not so much. Religious gatherings typically rely on private property that is subject to health and safety standards. Protests don't typically happen in or on property that is subject to those standards.
tmpz22 6y ago
I think as we’ve learned more about the virus we’ve learned (after the occurrence of the initial BLM protests) that the transmission rate in large open environments such as beaches or some protests is signficicantly lower compared to closed environments such as churches. In hindsight this does make it hypocritical that some events were criticized and others were not, though the argument can be made that given information at the time the prevailing notion that outdoor rallies by a demographic that refuses to wear mask (for example, in tight knit admissions lines at said rallies) would undeniably spread a not insignificant amount of COVID. Ultimately as a hypocrisy it’s small frys compared to the tidal wave of misinformation and intentionally damaging information, as well as the incompetent response and outright pitting of states against each other, compared to the current administrators actions during COVID as a whole. TLDR; America’s response to COVID has been a relentless failure compared to all other western countries of similar size and demographics (outside of MAYBE Brazil) such that exaggeration and hypocrisy towards a small number of social gatherings is utterly insignificant by comparison.
klyrs 6y ago
Have there been crackdowns on anti-mask protests? Or is it just BLM that you find problematic? Because I've seen a lot of coverage of both, and folks wear masks and attempt to maintain spacing at one sort and not the other.
- x87678r 6y ago
  I don't remember health officials supporting anti-mask protests, not sure why you think its relevant.
jmull 6y ago
I think you're confusing the CDC with BLM supporters. There certainly were various BLM supporters who argued the protests were more important than certain covid-19 restrictions. But that wasn't the CDC. I don't believe the CDC changed its guidance to allow for BLM protests.

ReptileMan 6y ago

I don't know whether this is true, but I think that the freak out and measures are grossly disproportionate compared to the danger of the virus.

PestoDiRucola 6y ago

While I agree with what BLM protests were protesting against, they did pick the worst possible time to do so. Especially because, numbers in hand, COVID has killed and will kill more people than police brutality would.

xphilter 6y ago
I don't really follow your comment. Here's a paper that concludes that BLM protests had (have) no effect on Covid case growth in the population: https://www.nber.org/papers/w27408 https://www.nber.org/papers/w27408 "Likewise, while it is possible that the protests caused an increase in the spread of COVID-19 among those who attended the protests, we demonstrate that the protests had little effect on the spread of COVID- 19 for the entire population of the counties with protests during the more than five weeks following protest onset."
- eej71 6y ago
  I think many people look at that logic (that those large BLM protests were safe) and wonder why it can't be applied to more mundane activities such as the US Open. It comes across as blatantly partisan and not the least bit driven by the science.
  - strictnein 6y ago
    Exactly this. If it's safe to march and yell and protest (all good things), it's safe to stand or sit quietly someplace.
  - xphilter 6y ago
    I get that, but there are differences. With something like the US Open, you have people staying in the same spot for long periods of time in a sheltered building (maybe some have more winds, maybe some don't). You have shared indoor bathrooms, indoor vending, sheltered entrances/exists. Nevertheless, I agree with the larger point that leadership should have provided more outdoor activities to draw people away from bars and restaurants.
  - rsynnott 6y ago
    Trouble with events like that is that it encourages people to travel, stay in hotels, and 'socialise' (in the "drinking large amounts of inhibition-lowering alcohol in the company of others" sense). The event itself would probably not be that dangerous; it's everything around it.
    - eej71 6y ago
      The same can be said of the protests. The participants in many of those activities were not just local to the city. They too traveled. I could understand reducing the attendance at the US Open to a lower level. But to set it to zero while not doing the same for any protests... it undermines credibility. Also, consider another example. New York State imposed a travel quarantine on those traveling from other states. Well, except for the MTV Music Awards. Those don't count. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mtv-video-music-awards-new-york-city-no-quarantine/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mtv-video-music-awards-new-york... Why? Because I think the political sensibilities of the award recepients better aligns with those who granted this waiver. This creates an aire of political favoritsm. It's very damaging.
- strictnein 6y ago
  > had (have) no effect > it is possible that the protests caused an increase in the spread > had little effect
  - xphilter 6y ago
    "had little effect" is equivalent to no effect; read the paper. "Trends between the treated and non-treated counties are virtually identical prior to the protests. This is reassuring and suggests that the timing of the protests is not correlated with trends in COVID-19 case growth or unobservable determinants of case growth." I don't know what you're quibbling over. If we're reaching for absolute zero levels of covid spread, then sure protests had a giant effect (just from logic). That's not practical; people need to go outside. And per the "it is possible that the protests caused an increase in the spread" is in reference to the article's earlier hypothesis that because people were leaving their homes to protest, you would expect them to get covid at a higher rate than someone who never left their house. The article didn't have any direct evidence that that was actually the case though.

helen___keller 6y ago

Given the evidence that the actual truth is that there is a significant danger posed by the virus (see 200k dead Americans), a more logical conclusion here is not overstating the risk of the virus, but understating the risk of BLM protests.

ReptileMan 6y ago
Can you prove that all of those 200000 will be alive today? You can expect 3 million and a change funerals each year with a population like us.
- Loughla 6y ago
  Wait. Is your argument that 200k people dying specifically from this virus isn't a big deal, because people die from other things, too? How and why did you form that belief? That just doesn't make sense.
  - insickness 6y ago
    A large percentage of those people would have died within the next year anyway. Covid Survival Rate: 0-19 years - 99.997% 20-49 years - 99.98% 50-69 years - 99.5% 70+ years - 94.6%
    - klyrs 6y ago
      Your mom will die soon. You have a choice between now, and a year from now. What do you prefer?
      - insickness 6y ago
        A year from now.
    - Loughla 6y ago
      So, again, your particular argument is - we shouldn't try to do anything about covid, because people already die from things? What a complete nonsense argument. What is different about covid that means we shouldn't try to treat it? We treat cancer, and genetic diseases, and the flu. We actively try to avoid death for a million other reasons. Why should we just throw our hands up with this one and act like it's not there?

kube-system 6y ago

Legally speaking, that decision was solid. Governments have strong and broad authority to regulate commerce, but their power to regulate protests is relatively narrow.

insickness 6y ago
Their power to regulate protests is about the same as their power to regulate religious gatherings, which they had no problem doing.
- kube-system 6y ago
  Directly, yes. Effectively, not so much. Religious gatherings typically rely on private property that is subject to health and safety standards. Protests don't typically happen in or on property that is subject to those standards.

tmpz22 6y ago

I think as we’ve learned more about the virus we’ve learned (after the occurrence of the initial BLM protests) that the transmission rate in large open environments such as beaches or some protests is signficicantly lower compared to closed environments such as churches. In hindsight this does make it hypocritical that some events were criticized and others were not, though the argument can be made that given information at the time the prevailing notion that outdoor rallies by a demographic that refuses to wear mask (for example, in tight knit admissions lines at said rallies) would undeniably spread a not insignificant amount of COVID. Ultimately as a hypocrisy it’s small frys compared to the tidal wave of misinformation and intentionally damaging information, as well as the incompetent response and outright pitting of states against each other, compared to the current administrators actions during COVID as a whole. TLDR; America’s response to COVID has been a relentless failure compared to all other western countries of similar size and demographics (outside of MAYBE Brazil) such that exaggeration and hypocrisy towards a small number of social gatherings is utterly insignificant by comparison.

klyrs 6y ago

Have there been crackdowns on anti-mask protests? Or is it just BLM that you find problematic? Because I've seen a lot of coverage of both, and folks wear masks and attempt to maintain spacing at one sort and not the other.

x87678r 6y ago
I don't remember health officials supporting anti-mask protests, not sure why you think its relevant.

jmull 6y ago

I think you're confusing the CDC with BLM supporters. There certainly were various BLM supporters who argued the protests were more important than certain covid-19 restrictions. But that wasn't the CDC. I don't believe the CDC changed its guidance to allow for BLM protests.