There's No Evidence That Protests Have Caused a Coronavirus Surge

[SummerMadness]

There's No Evidence That Protests Have Caused a Coronavirus Surge

The first protests against George Floyd’s killing in Minneapolis began on May 26, the day after a police officer knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes and killed the 46-year-old. By the next night, protesters were filling the streets in cities across the country despite concerns over the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.

As the protests went on, worries over a spike in the coronavirus grew. Last week, members of the Trump administration’s coronavirus task force warned governors of a protest-related increase in cases. Dr. Deborah Birx, the task force’s coordinator, said on a call last week that yelling from protesters could present a particular problem and potentially cancel the positive benefits of wearing masks.

But given the virus’s incubation period, it was always going to take time to find out if the protests would lead to a spike in cases. That time has come, and three weeks after the protests began, cities across the country where some of the biggest demonstrations took place are reporting no surge in COVID-19 cases.

In Minneapolis, the epicenter of the protests in late May, 1.4 percent of tests conducted on protesters last week came back positive. That was well under the state’s overall positive test rate at the time, which averaged 3.7 percent for the week. This week, 1,288 people were tested at a Boston site set up for protesters. Fourteen, or 1.08 percent, came back positive. Other locations reporting no measurable spike in cases after widely attended protests include Philadelphia, Seattle, Sacramento, and upstate New York.

Experts have attributed the lack of a spike to the prevalence of face masks at the protests, the outdoor setting, and the relative youth of participants.

 

[timewerx]

Its proof that social distancing / working-from-home doesn't prevent Covid transmission.

It's also proof that we closed down factories, offices, shops, bankrupted businesses, made people lose jobs, and wrecked the world economy for NOTHING.

It's proof that our world is run by people who have malevolent agendas or just plain stupid.

 

[disciple Clint]

There's No Evidence That Protests Have Caused a Coronavirus Surge

From the same source: “We can’t guarantee there’s not going to be a later rise,” Philadelphia Health Commissioner Thomas Farley told the Philadelphia Inquirer, “but it’s a good sign we haven’t seen it yet.” One worry, Drexel epidemiologist Michael LeVasseur told the paper, is that young, healthy people who’ve contracted the virus and remain asymptomatic will spread it to older, more vulnerable family members.

 

[ReesePiece23]

You might not catch the virus - in fact, you probably won't. But you will be a prime target for terrorists and crazy people. Mass gatherings (especially public ones with ZERO security) are like sweeties to those sorts of people. And I don't think they're too picky about skin colour either.

"Black Lives Matter" - yeah, they do. So stay safe. And don't drop your guard.

 

[FireDragon76]

There's No Evidence That Protests Have Caused a Coronavirus Surge

It's probably not as risky as some people assume, but I find it ironic that so many people are out protesting a handful of police killings, when the Coronavirus has killed far more innocent black people in the past few months than police have in over a decade.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Its proof that social distancing / working-from-home doesn't prevent Covid transmission.

It's also proof that we closed down factories, offices, shops, bankrupted businesses, made people lose jobs, and wrecked the world economy for NOTHING.

It's proof that our world is run by people who have malevolent agendas or just plain stupid.

Australians would beg to differ. Restrictions were eased in my state (Victoria) and immediately the infection rate has jumped. The virus has yet to run its course (if it ever does) so the real toll and real cost cannot be calculated as yet.

 

[Aussie Pete]

It's probably not as risky as some people assume, but I find it ironic that so many people are out protesting a handful of police killings, when the Coronavirus has killed far more innocent black people in the past few months than police have in over a decade.

Not to mention the infants that have been aborted in the same period of time.

 

[KCfromNC]

It's probably not as risky as some people assume, but I find it ironic that so many people are out protesting a handful of police killings, when the Coronavirus has killed far more innocent black people in the past few months than police have in over a decade.

In the same way it is ironic that Mothers Against Drunk Driving don't have any policy goals about cancer research.

 

[FireDragon76]

In the same way it is ironic that Mothers Against Drunk Driving don't have any policy goals about cancer research.

Protesting, in this case, subjects people to actual risks that are based on real statistics, whereas the outrage about police killings is largely based on anecdotal incidents spread by social media.

 

[FireDragon76]

Not to mention the infants that have been aborted in the same period of time.

Keep the anti-choice rhetoric out of this discussion. A fetus is not considered a person under US law.

 

[KCfromNC]

Protesting, in this case, subjects people to actual risks that are based on real statistics

I'd be curious to see studies on this.

whereas the outrage about police killings is largely based on anecdotal incidents spread by social media.

Plus all of the studies showing a clear statistical trend where minorities are over-represented as police violence victims, don't forget those.

 

[Hank77]

Its proof that social distancing / working-from-home doesn't prevent Covid transmission.

It's also proof that we closed down factories, offices, shops, bankrupted businesses, made people lose jobs, and wrecked the world economy for NOTHING.

Explain why meatpacking factories that did not shut down later did have to shut down.

 

[trunks2k]

IMO, it's a bit early to see a rise due to protests. I'd give it another couple weeks before we can really start gauging that. But, at least around me the protesters largely wore masks, everything was outside, and in the more organized ones there were people passing out sanitizer and stuff. So that may severely limit transmission.

 

[FireDragon76]

I'd be curious to see studies on this.


Plus all of the studies showing a clear statistical trend where minorities are over-represented as police violence victims, don't forget those.

African Americans are also over-represented in violent crime statistics, and therefore have more potentially negative interactions with law enforcement.

 

[disciple Clint]

Its proof that social distancing / working-from-home doesn't prevent Covid transmission.

It's also proof that we closed down factories, offices, shops, bankrupted businesses, made people lose jobs, and wrecked the world economy for NOTHING.

It's proof that our world is run by people who have malevolent agendas or just plain stupid.

It looks like doing nothing and business as usual has not worked out all the well for Sweden.

 

[KCfromNC]

African Americans are also over-represented in violent crime statistics, and therefore have more potentially negative interactions with law enforcement.

I was simply correcting the idea that BLM and others were going off nothing but anecdotes.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Keep the anti-choice rhetoric out of this discussion. A fetus is not considered a person under US law.

Well, since you used the incorrect term "anti-choice", your pro-death (equivalent term) rhetoric must be kept out of this discussion as well, particularly since you are wrong. A fetus is indeed a person under criminal laws in nearly all states(with abortion exception).

So the state of the law is that Mom can kill a baby/fetus with impunity via abortion, but if someone else kills the baby/fetus without her consent, it's murder or manslaughter (depending on intent).

So that means it is a baby for criminal purposes AND for tort purposes too, but "not a person" for other purposes, which is nonsensical.

Just FYI

 

[FireDragon76]

Well, since you used the incorrect term "anti-choice", your pro-death (equivalent term) rhetoric must be kept out of this discussion as well, particularly since you are wrong. A fetus is indeed a person under criminal laws in nearly all states(with abortion exception).

So the state of the law is that Mom can kill a baby/fetus with impunity via abortion, but if someone else kills the baby/fetus without her consent, it's murder or manslaughter (depending on intent).

So that means it is a baby for criminal purposes AND for tort purposes too, but "not a person" for other purposes, which is nonsensical.

Just FYI

That's blatantly misleading. Just because someone can claim a tort against someone else, doesn't follow that personhood is involved. Destruction of property, after all, is something that someone can be sued in court for.

 

[disciple Clint]

That's blatantly misleading. Just because someone can claim a tort against someone else, doesn't follow that personhood is involved. Destruction of property, after all, is something that someone can be sued in court for.

Criminal charges not only apply to the injury of death of the mother but also the unborn child. That makes the unborn child a person, you would think that a human is a human regardless of age and that the convenience of the mother would be subordinate to the right to live of the child.

 

[FireDragon76]

Criminal charges not only apply to the injury of death of the mother but also the unborn child.

Many states do not in fact have such laws, and in the end such laws will be reviewed by courts for their constitutionality. They won't stand, long term. To treat an embryo or fetus as a legal person would result in absurdity.