4 ms·

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.nbe

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.

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.