Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Florida
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ThatRobGuy" data-source="post: 75144247" data-attributes="member: 123415"><p>What would be the reason for California's uptick?</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]280291[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]280292[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests_in_Florida" target="_blank">George Floyd protests in Florida - Wikipedia</a></p><p></p><p>Jackonville had 1200</p><p>Orlando had 3000</p><p>Miami-dade county had several ranging from 500-2000</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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 <em>saying what they're supposed to say</em>), 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?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ThatRobGuy, post: 75144247, member: 123415"] 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. [ATTACH=full]280291[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]280292[/ATTACH] [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests_in_Florida']George Floyd protests in Florida - Wikipedia[/URL] 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 [I]saying what they're supposed to say[/I]), 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? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Florida
Top
Bottom