calbear93 said:
okaydo said:
calbear93 said:
okaydo said:
calbear93 said:
okaydo said:
sycasey said:
Unit2Sucks said:
calbear93 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
calbear93 said:
sycasey said:
hanky1 said:
It turns out that all the protests did not make one immune to COVID as has been reported by many liberal media outlets.
oops
No one said protests made you immune, just that they didn't seem to be big disease spreader events. Is there any new evidence to the contrary?
I don't understand this. So, is it OK to shout and scream right next to each other during this pandemic? If not, then what is the explanation, if one is so sure that thousands standing shoulder to shoulder, some wearing masks other not. Do the protesters carry some miracle trick that can scale to the rest of the world?
Are you saying you don't understand how it's possible that the protests didn't become superspreader events? Or why it is that people are defending the protests? I'm literally asking you what you are trying to say. I think you recognize that the virus is indifferent to political motivations.
I don't have a perfect answer but I can say that it's entirely possible that two things are true at the same time: protesting in public is/was a bad idea and that the spread of COVID as a result of these protests is lost in the noise of other community spread. I wouldn't recommend anyone gather in groups, indoors or outdoors, without masks, but it certainly seems that the risk of transmission outdoors is much lower - particularly in the summer where the virus can't survive as long in the heat. Given what we know from spring break in Florida, the lake of the ozarks party and other events, it does seem like the risk of outdoor transmission in these types of environments is lower probability than we had suspected in the Spring.
I also think we've established that people in this country don't like personal sacrifice, particularly when the results of that sacrifice are somewhat intangible. I would love for our government to sponsor research so that we could actually figure out which personal sacrifices are essential to prevent the spread and which aren't. For example, if it turns out that outdoor spread is rare and that fomites aren't a meaningful transmission vector we could greatly reduce the amount of work we are doing to prevent the spread. Every protective measure we take puts a mental toll on people so we should do our best to make sure that what we are doing is actually effective. Hopefully at some point we will actually know what we need to do to protect ourselves and won't have to keep doing things that don't protect us.
I am literally asking why people are convinced that thousands of people standing shoulder to shoulder and screaming did not act as a spreader event. I am totally in favor of right of assembly, and I think people being fed up with police brutality and police misbehavior are excellent reasons to protest peacefully. There are a lot of things that I would support in normal times (such as allowing people to work, allowing kids to go to school, not destroying jobs) that we chose not to do during the pandemic because it was so important to keep the infection rate down. So, why are we saying that thousands of people protesting shoulder to shoulder for days across all of America did not turn out to be a spreader event? What was different? If people were to say that, yes, it was a spreader event and I don't care that I may end up killing thousands of people, this protest is just that important to me, then fine. But don't play us for idiots like the health professionals did with masks telling us clearly idiotic things like "masks won't help you if you are not sick, so save it for health professionals who need it to be safe.". Unless all healthcare professionals were sick, that made no sense. All they needed to say was, just stay home until we have enough masks because we have to prioritizing getting the masks to people who don't have the option of staying home. Telling us that protesting was OK and not a superspreader event but getting a haircut is makes all of us less intelligent and less willing to listen to even sound advice.
I don't know if people are "convinced" but, as Sycasey has mentioned previously, no one has substantiated a connection between the protests and massive COVID spread. That could be because it's just noise compared to the massive COVID spread we are seeing or it could be because they didn't turn out to be superspreader events. Superspreader events have to be quite large to move the needle these days now that we are seeing 70k+ positive cases per day. Perhaps it's the fact that the impact of the protests was overshadowed by millions of people eating at restaurants and drinking at bars.
Like I said above, it would be great if someone could tell us exactly how this things spreads. You and I can't figure that out on our own and unfortunately the federal government doesn't seem that interesting in finding out why.
You seem to be focused on applying a political lens to what should be observable facts. I understand why you would be frustrated by public health experts justifying public protests when there was a substantial risk they would lead to meaningful spread. I don't know that any of that is relevant to the question of whether *the protests actually caused spread.* At this point, as I think I've made abundantly clear, I'm far more interested in the latter.
Precisely. I am not convinced that protests didn't contribute to COVID spread, but neither am I convinced they did. The evidence just isn't there. Conservatives here, however, seem very convinced that they did, even though when asked for evidence to support the claim they tend to clam up.
I am willing to be swayed either way. But it needs to be evidence, not emotional appeals. And by the way, I said my comments about protests also applied to the anti-lockdown protests that Trump encouraged. I'm not sure those contributed to any COVID spread either. Though in my anecdotal experience, mask-wearing seemed much more common at the Floyd/BLM protests, which I'd expect would help a lot.
A lot of protesters wore masks and protesters are being blamed because otherwise you'd have to blame the Republican governors, and why would they want to do that?
You guys have a hard time maintaining a train of thought without resorting to strawman argument thinking you won an argument that no one actually made.
Here you go:
After six months of learning about this virus and after over four months of shutting down commerce, we cannot say that maybe 90% of the thousands of people wearing scarfs, half worn masks standing side by side shouting is a spreader event. In fact, as Sycasey noted, even morons protesting mask wearing without wearing masks was not a spreader event.
But despite that lack of knowledge or evidence, we know enough to shut down small businesses and other commerce like barber shops (even if people were mostly wearing masks), outdoor concerts (even if people can mostly wear masks), sporting events, bars and restaurants.
And we wonder why people are confused and some even distrust these experts.
I will wear a mask, but the fact that you don't understand the stupidity of saying all of these protests (both on the right and the left) did not spread and there is no evidence that these type of close encounters where most people but not all wore masks did not spread the virus but we need to shut down schools and other businesses with this type of evidence just because of "science".
These type of arguments that you and others are making are why idiots are not wearing masks. It is inherently stupid to say people can protest because we don't have sufficient evidence it will spread in those type of close and extended encounters where many but not all are wearing masks but commerce, education and entertainment should be shut down based on the same evidence.
People are confused because Trump -- who, by the way, encouraged protesting during the pandemic -- has been downplaying and undermining the experts.
When you don't speak with one voice, you speak with none.
You mind has absolutely no discipline. If you have no logical response, you just shout Trump and think you made a point.
You're the one who illogically wrote "these type of arguments that you and others are making are why idiots are not wearing masks" when anti-mask hysteria has been going for 4 months now.
What the hell are you talking about? Anti-mask has not been going on for four months when medical experts for the first month or so told people wearing masks does not help. What hasn't changed? Don't wear a mask. No wear a mask. Don't touch anything because the spread is through contact and not through the air. No, it actually spreads through the air. Don't congregate in large crowds. No, actually, if you are going to congregate to protest, then it's OK. We don't have enough ICU beds. No, actually the ICU beds we asked to be set up was never used. We are in short supply of ventilators. No, actually we are sending them back because we don't need them. We are shutting down because we need to flatten the curve and spread the infection over a longer period of time. No, we are shutting down despite the flattening of the curve because we need the infection rate to be ummmmm how about zero?
I'm sorry but I think a lot of these items are unfair and are excuses.
1. It is a brand new disease. The facts change. The science changes. They are giving you the latest, best information they have at any given time. That changes as they get more information. That is how science works. You don't get easy, immediate, correct answers to questions. Does everyone want them to just give no information, do a year of study, figure it all out, and then provide public information when the whole thing has passed? THEY DIDN'T KNOW HOW IT WAS SPREAD IN MARCH. They don't know completely now. They are doing their best. This "you were wrong 2 weeks in. why should we listen to you now?" concept is ridiculous. They were dealing with a pandemic and working through the information real time. Early indication was that it was spread by contact. Some of that conclusion was because if it was a normal airborne disease, it would spread faster. It appears now it is airborne but viral load is very important so the worst situation is being indoors where the amount of airborne virus can accumulate. They are LEARNING. Further, at the beginning they need to cast a wide net. I think it is reasonable to err on the side of caution and give all the potential risks and then pull them back when you find certain things aren't particularly risky. But basically what I hear is a lot of blame for science not walking into a room and coming out in an hour with a universally accepted correct interpretation of exactly how the disease worked and how to combat it. That isn't fair. Yeah. Everything changed because they learned.
2. What "they" said was largely anything that any body who claimed to be a scientist would come out and say, normally the more sensational the better because that is what the media reports. Someone says "if we do absolutely nothing, and if absolutely everything goes wrong, and if there is no immunity, and if this virus is the worst it could possibly be, millions can die." and media translates to "Scientists say millions are going to die!" And then a month later people say "Hey, science! You said millions would die! - Liar!!!". They were constantly playing whack-a-mole with these issues. A scientist reports they could still find traces of the virus on a surface a week later, which does not mean it can be contracted that way, and that gets reported that you can get the virus a week later. Scientist respond that, okay, it is THEORETICALLY possible but extremely unlikely and the response is "but you said it's possible, right?". People were shouting recommendations all over the place. Don't touch your packages for 4 days! And the consensus came quickly that no, that was not necessary. Bring them in. Wash your hands.
3. They could have messaged better around a lot of issues. However, there was also a lot of black and white thinking and there is also a lot of people with an agenda rewriting what they said so that we won't listen to them now. They never said masks were useless. They said they are a lot more effective for health care workers. They asked people to leave the masks for health care workers given the supply issues. They did not stress cloth masks because the protection cloth masks provide to the user is limited and they thought it was more spread by contact. It has been months now since studies found that getting people to wear cloth masks significantly slowed the spread and they started stressing wearing them.
No scientists, nor anyone else that I can tell said congregating in protest was not risky. People chose to take the risk. In some areas police were VERY rough with the protesters and that didn't stop the protest. No one said - go out and do it. They said you know the risk and we can't stop you.
They NEVER said the only reason for shelter in place was to keep hospitals from being overwhelmed. That was a primary reason and an important one. There were many reasons. Slowing the spread so our government could do things like produce masks, set up testing and tracing and all the things that other countries who have been through pandemics already had infrastructure to do. (the fact that our government completely squandered the time that was bought by all our efforts should be what you are upset about). Buying time to LEARN about transmission, learn about effective treatment and care to lower the death rate. Maybe make some breakthroughs on medications.
As I said, they could have messaged better, but they were working under very difficult circumstances AND I doubt it would have helped. The issues are not conducive to a one line slogan and unfortunately that is all people listen to. "Don't buy masks because..." is heard as "Don't buy masks", "Flatten the curve because..." became "Flatten the curve".
4. You are upset because they prepared by getting ICU beds ready in case they were needed? I'm guessing Imperial county is glad the Bay Area prepared itself for the possibility of a major outbreak that never came because of all the other measures the Bay Area took to prevent it. Because now we have ICU beds for their overflow.
