One Ivy League epidemiologist, for example, claimed that President Trump was putting "millions" of people in danger of contracting the virus by encouraging reopening rallies. This was, purportedly, Trump's "arguably most dangerous act" in a series of corona-related actions that amounted to the equivalent of "genocide."
That was in late April. By early June, much larger outdoor protests were somehow a significantly lower public health threat, with the same epidemiologist asserting that "The new infections that may be generated by protests pale in comparison to the larger drivers of the epidemic in the U.S…." What happened to the the "millions" of people that were put at risk by reopening rallies, and encouraging such rallies being especially dangerous?
Wednesday, June 10, 2020
Experts …
… Public Health Experts are Embarrassing Themselves – Reason.com.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMost people cringe to some degree at the sight of unmasked protesters being too close and shouting. Whether and how much they do or do not, and the article seems to acknowledge that. It is a public danger, and easy to spot. It's like knowing when slews of police have guns drawn. Crowds like these and any unsafe people in public make it so that good citizens are not free to go outside. We know it is how the deadly virus spreads. It's how it spreads. There is no good argument for Junior Hitler-style rallies -- safe distance rallies, yes.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, beaches where the virus has been a hot spot, churches, cruise ships, and so forth. It's how this deadly virus spreads: 13 high school students test positive for coronavirus after unsanctioned prom. These students then went home and two days after contracting the virus, before they had any idea they had it, they were interacting with family, friends, and other contacts, spreading the virus during their infectious peak.
A new peer-reviewed and published study has come out: Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe (pdf). It was amazing to see just how many people have the virus. I'll just give one country, Spain. The number of confirmed cases as of this morning was 241,966 -- versus 2.6 million estimated cases on May 4. There are walking covidioys everywhere. The prom goers would have been quite "lucky" if they did not get it, not reverse. It's like a grown up saying, "I think I'll go to a Trump rally," considering he will not get the virus.
The danger of setting a bad example, such as if Trump were "allowed" his rallies or just his arguing for them, leads to adolescents and others saying, well, if it's okay for protesters and the president to be covidiots, then it is okay for schoolchildren to be crowded into classes. Oh, how a dumb-like-a-rock virus can outsmart humans.
There's another, more compelling argument for that latter case, which is that school can be where children get at least one good meal each weekday -- and we do not have time right now to figure how to ensure that each home has the meals needed to more safely feed children than to expose them and in turn their families and on down the line, to a deadly virus. Yet, this is where the "pro-protest" arguments land, that when people are getting killed (or children are starving), it is okay to gather in crowds -- the problem being that teachers would be ensuring that schoolchildren would be wearing masks. Yes, it is difficult to control children as well as protesters, but the indeed of "cracking down" or what others call "police brutality", is not helpful. Strong and responsible leadership would go a long way -- like good "teachers".
Having an excuse to "crack down" or to kill and maim protesters that we are seeing, that's what this article is twisting arguing for with its contortionistic twists:
"That said, everyone seems to acknowledge that the protests will cause more, perhaps many more, Covid-19 cases and deaths. Public health types, in general, believe their mission is to focus on public health above all else, so they obviously need to explain why the protests are nevertheless justified from a public health perspective, or, for more moderate figures, why they are reluctant to be critical of the failure of authorities to crack down the protests in the name of public health."
Is there any other approach than the danger the president put the protesters through in California, so that he could have a photo-op in front of a church with a Bible? This is unjustifiable: Washington Post: A video timeline of the crackdown on protesters before Trump’s photo op
Nobody is cited in this article, no one is quoted. Just as the article does not care to out irresponsible epidemiologists, they do not want to out the covidiot public health officials they prop up for argument, which were called, "extreme" and "pro-protest"? Let's all know who these stupid people are, and what they said. Name names and quote quotes. How about a real article. Name names and quote quotes. How about a real article, that goes after the "Public Health Experts [who] are Embarrassing Themselves". The case is more that this author and publication has embarrassed themselves.
ReplyDeleteActually, the articles cites Yale epidemiologist Gregg Gonsalves.
ReplyDelete