- Sep 4, 2005
- 24,640
- 14,524
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
But in NY where we had more protesters and more active protests our numbers are going down. What's the difference between NY and Florida that Florida's numbers are spiking???
Oh yeah, the governors. Cuomo is not racing to re-open everything whereas Florida's governor did. Cuomo takes the threat of the virus seriously because he follows the science and the data but Florida's governor laughed it off and took the political approach of opening everything up because Trump wanted the economy 100% open. Cuomo didn't open up much of anything and has backed off opening certain things while Florida opened all their bars, restaurants, beaches, stores, etc. to near-full or full capacity.
Yet here you are trying to blame it on protests. Funny how those protests only affect the Republican-led states adversely. Just keep ignoring the facts and blaming the protests. That way we can pretend the "economy over human lives" approach isn't a problem but rather Black Lives Matter is now to blame for the coronavirus.
Pretty ridiculous conclusion to blame it on the protests when that was something all the states experienced while ignoring the real difference between the states' experiences, that being that some opened everything up way too early while others cautiously kept things closed/limited and safe.
What would be the reason for California's uptick?
As I outlined in a prior post, Texas and Florida did have very large protests... Houston, Floyd's home town, had a very large demonstration that had an estimated 60,000 people. Florida had several large multi-day protests in a handful of major cities.
George Floyd protests in Florida - Wikipedia
Jackonville had 1200
Orlando had 3000
Miami-dade county had several ranging from 500-2000
Now, one could say that due to the policies in place, post-protest, that could've been a factor. IE: 5000 people going to protests, then going back to their homes under partial shelter-in-place orders is going to have a different outcome then 5000 people going to protests, then heading out to family gatherings, bars, etc... is probably going to drive very different outcomes. If two different cities had a beer festivals, but one city's major had temporarily restricted car usage, and the other had not, obviously the latter would have more DUI's, but that wouldn't mean that "allowing citizens to drive cars caused this spike in DUIs", obviously all the beer consumption did.
However, either large scale outdoor gatherings are dangerous transmission events, or they're not. If protests didn't drive a spike, and Democratic governors are confident in that (and aren't just saying what they're supposed to say), then one could conclude that there's no reason to keep beaches & parks closed anymore, as the protests would have "proved that it's not really dangerous to congregate in an outdoor environment", correct?
Upvote
0