It’s not about screaming, it’s about the enforceable law that was crafted with your profession’s consultation, a law that closes off all manner of human activity, except, apparently for causes you like.https://twitter.com/gregggonsalves/status/1269222577324666880 …
-
-
Replying to @michaelbd
Michael. First of all, it's heartwarming that you at the National Review have become such strong proponents for public health and the health of all Americans. I am sure we can count on you as we boost public health funding in the wake of this pandemic and expand the ACA. 1/
7 replies 3 retweets 66 likes -
Replying to @gregggonsalves @michaelbd
In January-May, we had a different epidemiological setting--the pandemic was at its height. Closures then and closures now are not equivalent. 2/
6 replies 1 retweet 24 likes -
Replying to @gregggonsalves @michaelbd
AND in fact, ALL states have re-opened weeks before these protests emerged with the idea that risk can be managed in many settings. 3/
5 replies 0 retweets 27 likes -
Replying to @gregggonsalves @michaelbd
And in fact, outdoor settings, masked are far, far less risky than re-opening places that operate daily in close quarters, with high density of people. That is why re-opening is being triaged. 4/
2 replies 2 retweets 35 likes -
Replying to @gregggonsalves @michaelbd
I think the frustration stems from a sense that the triaging, both legal and (as it were) rhetorical, has been shaped by political bias. The George Floyd memorial service on Thursday was indoors, and some high-profile attendees were not wearing masks.
2 replies 1 retweet 9 likes -
Replying to @JamesSurowiecki @michaelbd
And assumes there is also a position of neutrality, free from political bias. Yes, the memorial indoors, with some in attendance not wearing masks wasn't great. But we've also had weeks of the President modeling bad behavior and policies and how we're all arguing about not-that.
3 replies 1 retweet 10 likes -
I think there are few legitimate complaints here. There should have been greater explicit discussion that it was always a trade-off and that "essential" activity is not a universal definition. Plus, should have been more acknowledgement of the emerging evidence on outdoors/risk.
2 replies 0 retweets 20 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @gregggonsalves and
Public health folks probably should have spoken out more when people in parks/beaches were shamed (not by public health people always! But still) even into May and June. I personally would never risk a pool party but went to a protest myself. But both do risk transmission chains.
1 reply 6 retweets 15 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @gregggonsalves and
Plus, personally, I think it's unconscionable that we did not let people visit their dying relatives with whatever PPE they could personally muster, if or a few minutes, or with the promise of quarantine afterwards. We did that to break transmission chains, I get it but...
3 replies 7 retweets 27 likes
I think there is something to the current complaints, and there was an issue not always with what many public health people were saying, but perhaps what they weren't saying (or being heard) as loudly, that harm-reduction was a viable message, that it was always about trade-offs.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @gregggonsalves and
Then I agree that the argument that racial justice is a public health emergency, that outdoors is low-risk, followed by extensive discussion of harm-reduction (masks/drums) and call to limit/ban tear-gas, kettling, indoor detention etc. is valid. But that holds for other things.
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Yes, and many, many of us, including
@JuliaLMarcus@EpiEllie have been talking about how to do harm reduction across the board, not just for protests!2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.