4 ms·

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 Op

by 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.

by eej71 6y ago

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.