4 ms·

Except that 2020 protests didn't cause short term upticks in case numbers the same way some (not all) political and entertainment events did, most likely becaus

by verall 4y ago

Except that 2020 protests didn't cause short term upticks in case numbers the same way some (not all) political and entertainment events did, most likely because they were mostly young people and they were outside. The biggest risk factor for transmission is bad ventilation and the biggest comorbidity is age. So they weren't really wrong, and people at the time encouraged other political and entertainment events to be held outside to reduce risk.

rayiner 4y ago
> most likely because they were mostly young people and they were outside. Except that public health experts, at least on CNN, didn’t run with “outside activists involving young people are pretty safe.” They could have done that, but instead they framed the carve-out expressly in terms of “we think protests are really important.” This was early in the pandemic, when we were still ragging on Florida for not shutting down beaches and shutting down school sports.
- verall 4y ago
  Most epidemiologists that I remember were discouraging all gatherings. Some CNN talking heads, said that protesting for your right not to be discriminated against by police, is more important than not gathering, which is more important than entertainment events. Given they were liberal, that is not in any way surprising. CNN/mainstream media have so many people on that say different things and get re-reported by other stations. Plenty of people on TV at the time were discouraging protests. I think you just remember what made you feel angry.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    It was definitely notable enough for liberal outlets like Politico to take note: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/04/public-health-protests-301534 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/04/public-hea... See also: https://www.upworthy.com/public-health-experts-defend-antiracism-protests https://www.upworthy.com/public-health-experts-defend-antira... (“More than 1200 public health experts, infectious disease professionals, and community stakeholders have signed onto an open letter explaining why they support anti-racism protests happening across the country despite the potential risk of coronavirus spread.”)
    - verall 4y ago
      So a group of liberal scientists feel that social justice is more important than social distancing. You believe this is both unexpected and shreds their credibility? I don't see any institutions signing on here, just individuals with individual political views. I want to charitably understand your opinion here. Do you feel they should have kept quiet about their political views because as public health experts or epidemiologists they must remain neutral or else sully the fields as biased as a whole?
xyzzyz 4y ago
Literally nothing public health officials recommended had any measurable impact on the numbers (other than vaccination, which did measurably reduce deaths among the elderly, though contrary to public health officials’ statements, did nothing to stop the spread). Whether their about face had any impact is really beyond the point. Rather, the argument here is that the reason they turned on a dime with the position, which was, to remind you, explicitly about the topic of the protest, and not them being outside, shows quite clearly that they will gladly put political consideration above scientific ones. This means that you cannot trust in their integrity in other contexts either, especially ones where their recommendations just so happen to match their political proclivities. As a result, the credibility and trust their predecessors have earned over last century, are gone with the wind.
int_19h 4y ago
It was heavily encouraged at the time to refrain from any kind of gatherings. I actively supported the 2020 protests and still think that it was the right choice for people to make. But the way press coverage skirted the issue of COVID was despicable to watch, especially after they (rightly) devastated similar pro-Trump gatherings. I don't want my news to not tell me that it's unsafe to go because they have a political agenda. I want them to tell me that it's unsafe, and then I will decide based on my politics.
origin_path 4y ago
Public health people were very clear that outside protest marches are OK if they're about BLM but utterly reprehensible and banned if they were protests against lockdowns or other public health initiatives. Clearly, such people aren't scientists and never were. What was more interesting/depressing was the total lack of outrage coming from academia. Ritchie observes that biologists in particular seem to have serious problems with communist ideology to the extent that they advertise it on Twitter, and in the UK (where he's from) somehow the official SAGE advisory group ended up with someone on it who is a literal member of the Communist Party of Great Britain! We can infer that academia was silent about this massive perversion of science because they agree with it or at least don't disagree enough to speak out, meaning that public health research in general is nonsensical.

by verall 4y ago

rayiner 4y ago

> most likely because they were mostly young people and they were outside. Except that public health experts, at least on CNN, didn’t run with “outside activists involving young people are pretty safe.” They could have done that, but instead they framed the carve-out expressly in terms of “we think protests are really important.” This was early in the pandemic, when we were still ragging on Florida for not shutting down beaches and shutting down school sports.

verall 4y ago
Most epidemiologists that I remember were discouraging all gatherings. Some CNN talking heads, said that protesting for your right not to be discriminated against by police, is more important than not gathering, which is more important than entertainment events. Given they were liberal, that is not in any way surprising. CNN/mainstream media have so many people on that say different things and get re-reported by other stations. Plenty of people on TV at the time were discouraging protests. I think you just remember what made you feel angry.
- rayiner 4y ago
  It was definitely notable enough for liberal outlets like Politico to take note: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/04/public-health-protests-301534 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/04/public-hea... See also: https://www.upworthy.com/public-health-experts-defend-antiracism-protests https://www.upworthy.com/public-health-experts-defend-antira... (“More than 1200 public health experts, infectious disease professionals, and community stakeholders have signed onto an open letter explaining why they support anti-racism protests happening across the country despite the potential risk of coronavirus spread.”)
  - verall 4y ago
    So a group of liberal scientists feel that social justice is more important than social distancing. You believe this is both unexpected and shreds their credibility? I don't see any institutions signing on here, just individuals with individual political views. I want to charitably understand your opinion here. Do you feel they should have kept quiet about their political views because as public health experts or epidemiologists they must remain neutral or else sully the fields as biased as a whole?

xyzzyz 4y ago

Literally nothing public health officials recommended had any measurable impact on the numbers (other than vaccination, which did measurably reduce deaths among the elderly, though contrary to public health officials’ statements, did nothing to stop the spread). Whether their about face had any impact is really beyond the point. Rather, the argument here is that the reason they turned on a dime with the position, which was, to remind you, explicitly about the topic of the protest, and not them being outside, shows quite clearly that they will gladly put political consideration above scientific ones. This means that you cannot trust in their integrity in other contexts either, especially ones where their recommendations just so happen to match their political proclivities. As a result, the credibility and trust their predecessors have earned over last century, are gone with the wind.

int_19h 4y ago

It was heavily encouraged at the time to refrain from any kind of gatherings. I actively supported the 2020 protests and still think that it was the right choice for people to make. But the way press coverage skirted the issue of COVID was despicable to watch, especially after they (rightly) devastated similar pro-Trump gatherings. I don't want my news to not tell me that it's unsafe to go because they have a political agenda. I want them to tell me that it's unsafe, and then I will decide based on my politics.

origin_path 4y ago

Public health people were very clear that outside protest marches are OK if they're about BLM but utterly reprehensible and banned if they were protests against lockdowns or other public health initiatives. Clearly, such people aren't scientists and never were. What was more interesting/depressing was the total lack of outrage coming from academia. Ritchie observes that biologists in particular seem to have serious problems with communist ideology to the extent that they advertise it on Twitter, and in the UK (where he's from) somehow the official SAGE advisory group ended up with someone on it who is a literal member of the Communist Party of Great Britain! We can infer that academia was silent about this massive perversion of science because they agree with it or at least don't disagree enough to speak out, meaning that public health research in general is nonsensical.