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/
-
-
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 -
Replying to @zeynep @gregggonsalves and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likes -
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 -
Replying to @zeynep @gregggonsalves and
I remain baffled that public health experts seem to have forgotten the example of the Philadelphia war bonds parade in the 1918 pandemic. Was that not outdoors? And there was no tear gas involved. Yet, it is infamous for contributing to the spread of that virus.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
No that was cited a lot early on! That said, parades also involve indoors (bars/restaurants). But there is also evidence from 1918 about protective effects of outdoors. Also that's influenza. We started getting good epi data on Covid by March. But relaxing a message is very hard.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @gregggonsalves and
Thank you for the response. However, I have been arguing with people who have wanted to minimize this virus and its effects from the beginning. This current message bolsters their belief that the entire response to Covid-19 has been overblown.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.