America is giving up on the pandemic?

Post by centimeter » Mon, Jun 08, 2020, 12:54 AM UTC

noad wrote: post #530

scarmig wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're being flagrantly irresponsible. If nothing else, messaging and public trust are key parts of any epidemic response. Right now, a conservative might look at this letter and come away with the impression that this is a case of quarantine for thee but not for me. An opinion that wouldn't be unjustified: can you imagine them doing the same thing to provide cover for abortion protests? The right to religious gathe…

Or maybe there are just bigger problems than the virus right now.

Post by humaniania » Mon, Jun 08, 2020, 12:55 AM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #373

metrokoi wrote: post #90

Quoted from a letter from 1,000 health professionals on the virus and protests [0] >However, as public health advocates, we do not condemn these gatherings as risky for COVID-19 transmission. We support them as vital to the national public health and to the threatened health specifically of Black people in the United States. We can show that support by facilitating safest protesting practices without detracting from…

> However, as public health advocates, we do not condemn these gatherings as risky for COVID-19 transmission That's a shining example of weasel speak. They don't explicitly say it's not risky - because that would be plain lying, it is obviously risky - but they are saying they are not condemning it as risky. Which most people would take as implying it's not actually risky - even though they are not saying that. They…

Post by jdsully » Mon, Jun 08, 2020, 12:56 AM UTC

jtbayly wrote: post #416

jdsully wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science is partisan because its being misapplied. It cannot tell you what you should do, that is the realm of leadership. All it can say is whether a course of action may lead to a certain outcome. Whether such outcome is desirable vs the trade-offs is not a scientific fact as desirability only exists in the minds of each individual.

Your comment seems to actually mean that “science is partisan the moment it is being applied at all.”

Post by ta17711771 » Mon, Jun 08, 2020, 12:57 AM UTC

eanzenberg wrote: post #497

smsm42 wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, as public health advocates, we do not condemn these gatherings as risky for COVID-19 transmission That's a shining example of weasel speak. They don't explicitly say it's not risky - because that would be plain lying, it is obviously risky - but they are saying they are not condemning it as risky. Which most people would take as implying it's not actually risky - even though they are not saying that. They…

Actually, this is weasel speak: “it is obviously risky”. Anytime someone goes outside, it is a risk. Anytime you decide to drive, it is a risk. Covid is about as risky as driving a car. If covid were as deadly as claimed, as we’ve been told for months, you would think it was a death sentence for you and your grandma to partake in the protests we’ve been seeing.

Post by ta17711771 » Mon, Jun 08, 2020, 12:58 AM UTC

drusepth wrote: post #509

xphilter wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What new rules specifically? And what rules were not in place for the armed all-white protests in Michigan, for instance?

For example, countries permitting residents to "gather in groups of 12", or "protest in groups of up to 100". For example, https://cchealth.org/press-releases/2020/0602-Businesses-Reo... Why create specialized rules for protests that allow an order of magnitude more people to gather than those allowed in a "close cohort" gathering?