If social distancing and masks are not necessary in thousand-person clusters of protesters, then WHY ARE ANY BUSINESSES, MASSES, AND ACTIVITES STILL S

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1cthlctrth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
EricF said:
I believe authorities were and are doing the best job with the information they have at any given point.
Click to expand...
Good point. Therefore, I hope the state Governors end shut downs and limitations if they now believe that social distancing and masks are not necessary.
 
CNN quotes the letter (in context):

“Staying at home, social distancing, and public masking are effective at minimizing the spread of COVID-19. To the extent possible, we support the application of these public health best practices during demonstrations that call attention to the pervasive lethal force of white supremacy,” the letter says.

“However, as public health advocates, we do not condemn these gatherings as risky for COVID-19 transmission. We support them as vital to the national public health and to the threatened health specifically of Black people in the United States. We can show that support by facilitating safest protesting practices without detracting from demonstrators’ ability to gather and demand change. This should not be confused with a permissive stance on all gatherings, particularly protests against stay-home orders.”
 
I would agree, but also the converse, if cases begin to rise again after easing restrictions, I would hope appropriate measures will be taken.
 
Last edited:
1cthlctrth said:
if they now believe that social distancing and masks are not necessary.
Click to expand...
I doubt that most decision makers consider it a strictly binary proposition, nor do I. From the very beginning of the pandemic those tasked with making those calls have, for the most part and with some exceptions, decided based on competing priorities and what is best for the greatest number at the time and the then-current knowledge of the disease and its methods of transmission.
 
The question in the OP really isn’t hard, as it contains a false premise based on bad logic. Namely, that social distancing and masks are not necessary in clusters of protesters because clusters of protesters do not wear them. Does the OP believe everything the protesters are saying to be true? I doubt it. So why believe this one thing to be true? Please, don’t jump off a bridge if you see someone else doing assuming it must be okay.
 
Last edited:
TheLittleLady said:
“However, as public health advocates, we do not condemn these gatherings as risky for COVID-19 transmission. We support them as vital to the national public health and to the threatened health specifically of Black people in the United States. We can show that support by facilitating safest protesting practices without detracting from demonstrators’ ability to gather and demand change. This should not be confused with a permissive stance on all gatherings, particularly protests against stay-home orders.”
Click to expand...
In other words a gathering is not risky if we support it.
 
Again, in context, the preventative measures are made clear.

Also, in the us, outside of business that are licensed by health departments, using precautions is voluntary. If folks don’t want to wear a mask and want to stand shoulder to shoulder, that is their choice.
 
TheLittleLady said:
Again, in context, the preventative measures are made clear.

Also, in the us, outside of business that are licensed by health departments, using precautions is voluntary. If folks don’t want to wear a mask and want to stand shoulder to shoulder, that is their choice.
Click to expand...
A gatherings risk doesn’t change based on what the protest is about. Why can’t other protests be permitted under the same conditions?
 
Who says that you cannot protest about anything you want to protest about?
 
While I 100% agree with you that masking is a necessary case of “better safe than sorry”, I’m starting to suspect that anyone with a labcoat doesn’t have a blessed clue about what the virus is and is not capable of and just don’t want to admit it – take for instance the whiplash series of about-faces WHO did on whether or not asymptomatics are a spread vector in the last 12 hours. Those with a “(D)” or “(R )” after their name just don’t have a blessed clue about ANYTHING, the virus doubly so, and again are loathe to admit it.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
Namely, that social distancing and masks are not necessary in clusters of protesters because clusters of protesters do not wear them.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are correct that it doesn’t make it ok. The larger point here is the blatant inconsistency of the media, and their ACTIVE participation in shaping what is portrayed as “the news:”


Murderous to protest during a pandemic? Such gatherings, we were told, would spread the virus at hyper speed and directly result in countless deaths.

Vox published an article assuring us that protesting under these conditions is racist because it might kill black people.

An article on PennLive.com repeated the once-common argument that protestors shouldn’t receive medical care if they contract the virus.

The Guardian warned that protestors might be spreading the virus “far and wide.”

Jimmy Kimmel, among others, said that protesters are “suicidal.”

Others called the protests “reckless” and “mind-bogglingly selfish.”

The Washington Post assured us that demonstrators “don’t care about lives” while Slate accused them of “twisting the idea of liberty.”

Another Washington Post op-ed compared protesters to Typhoid Mary, as The Week and The Nation both agreed it is “dangerous” to be out rallying at a time like this. USA Today was even more direct, saying that protesters are “risking your health.”

These are just a few examples.

Currently in Minneapolis and throughout the nation, mass looting is probably not exactly a more worthy cause than standing up against the disastrous and unconstitutional lockdowns that decimated the economy and shredded the Bill of Rights, but that’s beside the point. The point is that the very act of protesting, or of forming large groups for any other reason, was supposed to put many lives at risk, thus was worthy of condemnation (and prohibition by the government).

In one fell swoop, literally overnight, all of that was put to the side.
 
Last edited:
If I unleashed my inner conspiracy theorist it wouldn’t be pretty. As it is, I can’t do much but I can live my life free from fear and I am determined to do so. Our state is slowly opening and I have been able to go to Mass for the past three weeks thanks be to God.
All this has done is give me a deep distrust of experts.
 
I’m no constitutional lawyer, but I always understood restrictions on the 1st amendment to have to be content neutral. You can’t put limits on the right to assemble of one group, but less restrictions on another group, just because the government likes the reason the latter group is assembling better.

Restrictions would have to apply equally to say, an evangelical church service as it would to a racial protest, or the memorial service of one person should be treated the same as a memorial serve of another.

Whether epidemiologists or governors think one gathering is more important than another is irrelevant.

Is my understanding correct?
 
Last edited:
White_Tree said:
Here’s two, from CNN and US News and World Report. They don’t say explicitly “never mind the virus” but they do cite a letter from public health experts saying they believe the potential benefits from the protests justify the risk of infection. Both articles quote from the letter saying:
Click to expand...
Thank you. I wouldn’t have taken the time to sort through the great number of articles and videos I’ve read/watched, but I have definitely heard people say that we absolutely should not blame the rioters/protesters if there’s a spike–while we just finished hearing how people who protest the lockdown in their cars or open their salon ARE responsible for a spike.

I find it hard to understand how anyone could have missed these two contradictory statements.
TheLittleLady said:
Other than that, no one is arresting people for having a BBQ or a birthday party or a church service. Thank God, our Bishops wish to protect the least of those among us and have put restrictions in place for parishes.
Click to expand...
Yes, people have been arrested for a church service or threatened with fines. A woman was arrested for opening her salon. There are snitch lines to report people having a barbecue with more than the state-allotted number of people. A man was arrested for being out on the ocean by himself with no one on the beach.
Lookingforjoy said:
I think police brutality is a much worthier target of protest than not being able to get a haircut.
Click to expand...
This is a horrible slap in the face to the millions who lost their jobs and businesses. NO ONE protested ‘not being able to get a haircut.’ They protested a government that took away their livelihoods, destroyed their businesses, and told them they weren’t even allowed to buy seeds. They protested government actions that destroyed the economy and in many cases, the protesters personally. They protested new regulations that were not being followed by the government officials who created them. They protested attempts to all but lock them in their own homes. They protested the assault on our Constitutional rights and regulations that led to increased depression, despair, alcohol and drug use, suicide, and domestic violence.

Those protests were NOT about ‘not being able to get a haircut’ and anyone who keeps pushing that is either flat out lying or completely unable to understand anything deeper than a bumper sticker slogan. Or possibly is living in a rich neighborhood where everyone still has their job and nice home and is not going to a food bank to feed their children.
 
You live in the USA and you’re able to go to Mass every week???

I’m in Australia where (I’ve heard) we have less than 40 active cases in the entire country and I’m not allowed to go to Sunday Mass more than once a month.

It’s getting ridiculous.
 
Hey, some people were booked for speeding yesterday. How come I need to obey speed limits if other people can disregard them! It doesn’t make sense!

And neither do some of the posts in this thread…
 
Poet said:
Yes, people have been arrested for a church service or threatened with fines. A woman was arrested for opening her salon. There are snitch lines to report people having a barbecue with more than the state-allotted number of people. A man was arrested for being out on the ocean by himself with no one on the beach.
Click to expand...
Quite a few stories like that, in fact.
Poet said:
This is a horrible slap in the face to the millions who lost their jobs and businesses. NO ONE protested ‘not being able to get a haircut.’ They protested a government that took away their livelihoods, destroyed their businesses, and told them they weren’t even allowed to buy seeds. They protested government actions that destroyed the economy and in many cases, the protesters personally. They protested new regulations that were not being followed by the government officials who created them. They protested attempts to all but lock them in their own homes. They protested the assault on our Constitutional rights and regulations that led to increased depression, despair, alcohol and drug use, suicide, and domestic violence.
Click to expand...
The key word here is “livelihood.”

Not suggesting anyone should break the law, but if someone’s a small business person, with no money coming in and a family to feed, I see where they’re coming from.

But the looters and rioters, they’re being held up as heroes.

And on the regulations not “followed by the government officials who created them,” I’m thinking of the lieutenant governor of Massachusetts attending a big outdoor Memorial Day party after telling the common people not to do the same.
Poet said:
Those protests were NOT about ‘not being able to get a haircut’ and anyone who keeps pushing that is either flat out lying or completely unable to understand anything deeper than a bumper sticker slogan. Or possibly is living in a rich neighborhood where everyone still has their job and nice home and is not going to a food bank to feed their children.
Click to expand...
Or, perhaps, a government employee who’s being paid all this time to sit home and do nothing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top