As Twitchy reported this week, dozens of public health and disease experts signed a letter supporting the George Floyd protests because “white supremacy is a lethal public health issue.” While Politico notes that conservatives are pouncing on those defending thousands of protesters gathering despite the COVID-19 pandemic as hypocrites, Vox has reported that many have now decided it’s worth it to gather in large crowds.
In the meantime, we have more scientists pumping out lengthy threads about how racism and police brutality are a health problem too, and that the risk of contracting COVID-19 during a protest is either slim or a risk the protester decides to take.
Here are excerpts of an epic thread by Yale’s Gregg Gonsalves, whose focus is epidemiology for infectious disease:
So, yesterday, I spent a good portion of my time on @Twitter arguing with people who thought that the support of #BlackLivesMatter protests by public health experts and healthcare workers was hypocritical, risked our credibility, as these events risk #SARSCOV2 transmission. 1/
— Gregg Gonsalves (@gregggonsalves) June 6, 2020
I think the arguments from conservative commentators were not in good faith. There was gnashing of teeth about the relaxation of social distancing by protesters, but few of them ever criticized the President's calls to 'liberate' states, the failure of the COVID19 response. 3/
— Gregg Gonsalves (@gregggonsalves) June 6, 2020
Now, some have said, if there are thousands of new cases of #COVID19, with many of them in communities of color, over the next few months, due to the protests, was it "worth it?" Well, many in communities of color have voted with their feet. 8/
— Gregg Gonsalves (@gregggonsalves) June 6, 2020
But if you vote with your feet and go to church or reopen your hair salon because you think it’s “worth it,” you could be arrested.
The protesters are balancing competing risks to their communities, of COVID19, police violence and centuries of systemic racism, which has led to declining, but still large gaps in life expectancy, health and wellness among African Americans and their white counterparts. 10/
— Gregg Gonsalves (@gregggonsalves) June 6, 2020
This is about balancing competing risks to communities, understanding that the protesters are trying to address several real health risks, including factors that put communities at greater risk for COVID in the first place, which some would like to sweep under the carpet. 28/
— Gregg Gonsalves (@gregggonsalves) June 6, 2020
And here’s Jeremy Konyndyk, who contributes on pandemic preparation to the Center for Global Development:
OK, let's address these "why did we lock down if BLM protests are ok" takes.
There are lots of pundits arguing this means public health advice is all relative to ideological sympathies.
That's not it. It's about balance of risks.
— Jeremy BLACK LIVES MATTER Konyndyk (@JeremyKonyndyk) June 4, 2020
“It’s all about a balance of risks” … which is what lockdown protesters have been saying for months.
The highest risk of super-spreading events (which we now suspect drive the bulk of transmission) are those that combine multiple risk amplifiers without the risk reducers.
So something like packed bars (as in WI after their stay-home order was annulled) fall in that category.
— Jeremy BLACK LIVES MATTER Konyndyk (@JeremyKonyndyk) June 4, 2020
The protests are less clear cut.
They have some of the risk amplifiers:
– large crowds
– vocalizingAs well as some of the risk reducers:
– masking, which has been pretty widespread from what I've observed
– outdoors in sun
– some movement to reduce prolonged contact— Jeremy BLACK LIVES MATTER Konyndyk (@JeremyKonyndyk) June 4, 2020
So what about churches that wanted to meet outdoors while wearing masks and not even leaving their cars in some cases?
This is why public health advocates aren't criticizing the protests.
Their advice doesn't suddenly evaporate depending on a political cause. Instead they assess relative public health risks of these protests vs continuing to accept a status quo that kills many people of color.
— Jeremy BLACK LIVES MATTER Konyndyk (@JeremyKonyndyk) June 4, 2020
With this, I am now convinced that public health advice is biased depending on ideological sympathies. Where was this nuanced deliberation, when people wanted to stupidly protest the lockdown?
We’ll need global faith in the credibility of public health advice all too soon…— Edele Mancini (@EdeleMancini) June 4, 2020
Everything leftists say is a lie designed to enhance their power at your expense.
Exhibit A https://t.co/7fbkNcvPW4
— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) June 6, 2020
What we really need is more condescension and scolding from people who are bald faced lying to our faces.
That should restore our confidence in them. https://t.co/Mr4Qs9ZzuF— Mo Mo (@molratty) June 6, 2020
Trying to imagine the level of inability to read the room it requires to construct a dozen tweet thread so utterly full of shit that my 10 year old could see right through it, and do it in a tone that demonstrates he has no clue he just frittered away all claim to authority.
— Mo Mo (@molratty) June 6, 2020
Every single successive tweet was like a farewell letter to his credibility as an expert. And yet he still hit "send." Just utterly clueless.
— Mo Mo (@molratty) June 6, 2020
that whole balance of risks argument is pretty much the argument the "Why are we locking dowb" folks were making. Only those folks mostly just wanted to go back to work and see family.
— Luke van Loenen (@luke_sw2) June 6, 2020
Not “pretty much” – it is the exact argument many of us were making….
If you wanted to balance the risks of the outcomes of putting people into poverty vs increased transmission rates you were labeled a heartless ghoul that wanted to kill grandma
— Douglas Benjamin (@dlbjr9) June 6, 2020
My county has had less than fifty cases (and no deaths) we have not had a new case in over a week…I can't go to church tomorrow; but I could go to the local protest yesterday…I find it very difficult in my current situation to not see advice as ideological
— 'Hudson' (@LeicsFox1509) June 6, 2020
What makes churches riskier if social distance is maintained, masks are worn, etc.?
— Michael_M (@moritz_221) June 6, 2020
Christ.
— Hacklesforth Hamlet (@HacklesforthH) June 4, 2020
Simply put, this is the worst moment in modern history for mass protests to take place.
Extremely dangerous.
— king moonracer (@vigoriab) June 4, 2020
It's about political correctness taking precedence over public health. It's just not that complicated.
— WearaDangMaskGeez (@FrankMarro) June 6, 2020
The trouble with absolutes is that you inevitably back yourself into a corner, and that's what some of the "lockdown forever" crowd has done. The best lesson might be for all of us to be a little less judgy in the future.
— Katieinjc (@KatherineArabis) June 5, 2020
The outdoor/sunshine part is borderline gaslighting. People were being berated for being at the beaches and parks (outdoor, sunlight, distanced and masked) not a week before the protests.
— Plomeek Soup (@PlomeekSoup) June 5, 2020
I'm not even reading the rest of your b.s. thread. I'll just say this: Healthy people losing their jobs and/or businesses was not a risk most wanted to take relative to the mild (or complete lack of) symptoms from a virus. They should have been given that choice.
— LinkedIn Model (@statsDude) June 6, 2020
"balance of risks"
LOL.
— Boris The Cat (@BorisTheCat2) June 6, 2020
Balance of risks like:
– risk of losing your job
– risk of being unable to feed your family
– risk of losing your business
– risk of losing your home
– risk of not being with your dying family member
– risk or missing the funeral of your parent or loved ones https://t.co/QWkc1Zq2IU— Fusilli Spock (@awstar11) June 6, 2020
Justifications I’m seeing are incredible.
— The Major ?? ?? (@saltymarine80) June 6, 2020
I’m never going to trust any of these “experts” again. I’m so tired of this shit.
— Steve Gracin (@stephengracin) June 6, 2020
THEY ARE LITERALLY TRYING TO KILL GRANNY!!!!!!!
— Chibi William Henry Harrison? (@TobytheBeagle1) June 6, 2020
The virus doesn't care about whether the protest is just or not. Protesting over BLM is just as dangerous as protesting over lockdowns. If one is unacceptable, the other is
— JoeyJoeJoeJrShabadoo (@SideshowJon36) June 5, 2020
Viruses don’t transmit differently because of “Why” a person is standing close to someone else…but hey great mental gymnastics. And the balance of risks option, was taken away for the 40 million unemployed, the government made that decision for them and their employers
— Terrence Maddoux (@Jrizzell) June 6, 2020
Hmmmm no, but nice try.
— Joe Gonzales (@JoeGonz67565689) June 4, 2020
You should compete in the Olympics. You’re great at gymnastics.
— Assault Clip (@assaultclip) June 6, 2020
— ringtrick (@ringtrick) June 6, 2020
I assume then I can find your careful risk-benefit analysis of the "anti-lockdown" protests? Surely, despite your personal views, you would have pointed out the human and economic costs of lockdown. And that those protests could be justified depending on the balance of risks.
— Larry (@Larrythelib1) June 6, 2020
The entire thread is useless unless you are prepared to answer this question. If COVID numbers go up after the protests, are you prepared to take your share of the responsibility?
— BiohazZzard (@BiohazZzZard) June 6, 2020
Going to the beach was killing grandma and we threw 42 MILLION people out of work and all of that was justifiable only 10 days ago. Spin all u want. People know when they are being lied to. This entire post is complete BS
— ST_Nole (@ST_Nole) June 5, 2020
Yet more proof that current public health advice is heavily influenced by ideology. You’re so meticulous in balancing the risks now but when people were protesting because millions of jobs had been lost & they didn’t know how they’d support their families, you took no such care.
— KGK (@katieatl) June 5, 2020
The lie is exposed. pic.twitter.com/v1s8TgXuZY
— Assault Clip (@assaultclip) June 6, 2020
Stuff it. No one is buying it anymore.
— Captain 'Merica (@con_patriot) June 6, 2020
Losing your job is ok.
Burning business is ok.— Marj "Crossfire Comfort" Oszman??? (@TurntableKittah) June 6, 2020
This is embarrassing.
— Josh (@audrum1) June 6, 2020
So we can put you down in the "Killing Granny is Now Okay" column?
— Chibi William Henry Harrison? (@TobytheBeagle1) June 6, 2020
Suddenly it’s up to individuals to determine the risk they are willing to accept, as long as they’re headed to a protest.
Related:
Former CDC director drops some more science: Violence harms public health, and protesting outside poses tiny COVID risk https://t.co/xT2dN7bScg
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) June 5, 2020
Join the conversation as a VIP Member