Covid as bad as it is will be an issue of the near future, civil rights gains or losses will have an impact in decades to come.
... And then watching 10,000 people pack together downtown exercising their right to free assembly, and likely undoing all those months of progress.
Politicans politicize all that they can in order to use it as ammo against their opposition. The mainstream media creates and editorializes narratives in the name of garnering and sustaining attention and therefore advertising dollars.
If you're engaging with either, you have to approach it with skepticism, try to find balancing viewpoints, and make the best decisions for yourself, your family, etc. as a result.
Unfortunately, in the current case, healthcare professionals have allowed themselves to become tools of the above parties and have massively discredited themselves and their institutions in doing so. We're now even at a point where someone could rightfully be completely confused as to whether something as small as buying/wearing masks is a fruitful endeavour or a waste of effort, which is a dire state for us to be in.
The economic devastation wrought by the pandemic could ultimately kill more people than the virus itself: https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-05-11/more-t...
With kids stuck at home, ER doctors see more severe cases: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/with-kids-stuck-at-home-er...
The Untold Toll — The Pandemic’s Effects on Patients without Covid-19: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMms2009984
COVID-19 Is Likely to Lead to an Increase in Suicides: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/covid-19-i...
Coronavirus could deplete Social Security as early as 'this decade': analysis: https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/coronavirus-could-deplete...
"Deaths of despair”: The deadly epidemic that predated coronavirus: https://www.vox.com/2020/4/15/21214734/deaths-of-despair-cor...
'Biblical' famines could double global hunger as a result of the coronavirus crisis, UN warns: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/04/22/coronavirus-biblical-fam...
How COVID-19 may increase domestic violence and child abuse: https://www.apa.org/topics/covid-19/domestic-violence-child-...
Millions of Credit-Card Customers Can’t Pay Their Bills. Lenders Are Bracing for Impact: https://www.wsj.com/articles/millions-of-credit-card-custome...
Now to dare dumb down the argument to being only about haircuts is, well everyone can understand what I would say, but I don't want to run afoul of the rules.
See how a strawman argument works?
The other side doesn’t, so I’m much more supportive of their protest, even though there might be associated risks.
As long as I don’t call for the first protest to be made illegal this is a perfectly consistent argument.
Sometimes you have to look at the content of a protest to judge if it’s valuable or not. And it’s perfectly ok to judge a protest as not being valuable.
They want to be the judges that get to determine which movement is worthwhile and which movement is not worthwhile.
The good argument is that if we care about mitigating suffering and death, we should also be looking at the suffering and death the lockdown measures lead to. Counting one side and not the other is dishonest.
This is at best an extremely distorted comparison of the two messages.
40 million people are unemployed. The stakes are much larger than just getting a haircut.
Those are the signs you were shown, or chose to notice.
In any case as a legal matter it makes no difference. Government restrictions on 1st amendment rights to assemble and protest can only survive strict scrutiny if they are viewpoint-neutral.
As soon as governors are deciding which protesters to fine/ticket based on their agreement or disagreement with the contents of their protest signs, as a matter of law the protest/gathering ban is done for. (See the recent 5-4 Supreme Court decision where justice Roberts ruled that, at the time, there wasn’t evidence that church services in California were being treated unequally with other equivalent non-religious services. When the case comes back up again with Gov Newsom’s approval of protestors marching outside, but not Christians marching in religious processions, the ban is going to fall apart in court).
The trivialization of other people's causes, especially those that should engender sympathy (literally 10's of millions of those in the weakest economic situations), is a 'root cause' here.
If a very serious healthcare issue is politicized, we're all in trouble.
I could say: "One group is holding signs that say 'Let us reopen. I have 2 children to feed' and another group is calling for police abolition while smashing in the windows of small businesses and murdering people" and it would be just as valid of a description as yours. It's not a fair description though.
Maybe your framing is the result of not having a wide enough array of news sources.
What do you think the definition of a 'double standard' is? You know, applying a different standard to the same behaviour (protests).
>Circumstances and outcomes vary, a form of 'neutrality' that ignores that fundamentally isn't a useful metric.
Sure. And it's still a double-standard. You just associate the phrase 'double-standard' as a negative and you don't like to apply something negative to behaviour you approve of.
If someone calls for protests to be illegal in one case and not the other then that’s a double standard and not such a great argument. (There are some subtle differences here, though: The situation a month ago was materially different – both in terms of the epidemiological picture as well as in terms of new scientific evidence about the relative dangers of being inside and outside – so it is possible for someone to argue for a difference on that basis, though I do acknowledge that’s a very shaky one.)
What’s happening here, though is that people judge the content of the protests: The content of the protests against the restrictions was irrational trash, so engaging in them is irresponsible stupidity. That’s a value judgement and it is perfectly valid to arrive at different conclusions with such a value judgement.
Judge not that ye be not judged.
>Circumstances and outcomes vary, a form of 'neutrality' that ignores that fundamentally isn't a useful metric
Perhaps not useful to you and your cause.
However, if you want to talk about double standard, where are the cosplaytriots who were sooooo concerned about their rights? Where is the groundswell of Second Amendment defenders out protecting these protests against the government like the Black Panthers did back in the 1960's?
They all bluster about standing up to the government--here is the time. So why is silence all I hear? Seems like they don't really care about those pesky rights so much, after all. And it seems like they don't really like standing up when the government might actually shoot back. Cowards.
Lots of people on the left were calling for more support from the government to handle this. EU unemployment is half of what the US is. Germany's at 3.5%. So risking yourself, for the economy didn't seem worth it especially when other nations did so much more. Lots of states started eviction moratoriums to protect people.
Toward your point: I fundamentally don't respect most conservatives, much less those who think they need to protest against public health measures. So to an extent, yes, this is a lot more important than what they were complaining about.
You're conflating political stance with intelligence. Also, you need to respect everyone. That doesn't mean agree-with or follow blindly, just recognize their inherent humanity and worth. I feel like that must have been a sentiment promulgated by someone famous at some time in the past.
I don't think they are "worth less" than someone else, and I certainly know there are intellectually honest, well-meaning conservatives in the country. The line starts to blur <somewhere that I have defined> but that gets too politically specific for HN.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_assembly
According to Wikipedia assembly is an example of a civil liberty. The preeminent doctrine on civil liberties is On Liberty. According to John Stuart Mill the greatest destroyer, as addressed near the top of chapter 2, of civil liberties is populism whether from an aggressive majority or angry mob.
Assembly only really means anything, to those observing, if the participants are assembling for a purpose of individually formulated passion opposed to an exertion of social pressure. That, as it would appear, is the difference between a protest versus an angry mob.
That said I would say the most fundamental right is freedom of expression which can occur from a group or individual and be every bit as powerful and influential.
I'm a fan of John Stuart Mill's writing, but having a memorable book title does not make a permanently relevant tome that applies to all of history backward and forward.
My understanding of assembly (no wikipedia reference here) is that it's a form of expression (which you also kind of said yourself).
Are saying that assembly isn't good or necessary for society? Or is this entire post specifically about the OP's word choice?
In either case, are you citing J. S. Mill as a form of "proof" for your assertion?
> having a memorable book title does not make a permanently relevant tome that applies to all of history backward and forward.
The definition of liberty has not changed, so yes that essay still equally applies.
Out of curiosity, what other philosophers do you consider to be so absolutely correct (and so clear in their statements that misinterpretation is impossible) that rise to the level of proof or evidence when cited?
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Meditations_on_First_Philos...
This is what people reference when they say: I think, therefore I am. I find that is not at all accurate to the writing. Really it says a thinking machine that can doubt can doubt away all things but doubting itself so then that ability must exist.
How is the ‘free assembly’ you are talking about more important, and even if it is to many, am I required to have come to the same conclusion, or to follow the conclusion someone else has made for me?
I have a feeling a lot of freedom of assembly protections were really more about the ability to get together and discuss stuff than it was about marches and protests.
In that case, our freedom to assemble has been massively curtailed for months.
Who gets to decide what assembly is worth violating the lockdown for?
Either COVID-19 is serious enough that it merits cancelling a bunch of “critical” features of normal life, or it isn’t.
IMO this will create a level of pandemic similar to NYC unless we really start testing and contact-tracing. It does feel like much of the left is OK with this, whereas everyone was freaking out when the reopen protesters were protesting. This is inconsistent, and unfortunate as I do have somewhat left-leaning views.
Taking down a list of people who dined at a restaurant during a certain time period is one thing.
How are you supposed to contact trace a 10,000 person protest? No one is going to know the random people they happened to be standing next to and chanting at a specific moment.
If these protests are super spreading events it blows a huge hole in any attempt at contact tracing & targeted quarantine/isolation. Hopefully it turns out the virus somehow can’t spread well in these conditions otherwise this is a huge setback for a country that just sacrificed so much to reduce the virus prevalence.
Consider that when people are yelling and standing tightly packed together, even if there's wind it won't blow away the droplets, just the aerosols. And new aerosols will be continuously generated...
But why were the people protesting the lock downs and business shutdowns and the limiting of freedoms the yahoos and crazy murderers? Why did nurses block them from protesting but not one would block someone now?
This is a false dichotomy. Sure, these people (and their workers) deserve empathy and support, but that doesn’t mean they should be allowed to reopen. You can support business owners via financial aid or other measures while their business is closed.
If you believe that you get infected at a store, don't go to the store ... case closed. On what basis is the state "protecting" someone that does not want to be protected? On what basis is someone considered a criminal when a crime could only potentially be committed?
what if the person is immune to the disease, already had the disease, or does not mind getting infected?
Because we live in a society and our actions affect others. When you take this argument to an extreme it becomes pretty obvious that it is fallacious. For example, do you think it is okay for someone to actively burn their garbage, venting toxic smoke into their neighborhood because they are “willing to take the risk” of developing health complications?
> If you believe that you get infected at a store, don't go to the store
It would really nice if this worked but it strikes me as a grand oversimplification of how society operates and diseases spread.
> what if the person is immune to the disease, already had the disease, or does not mind getting infected?
These people still risk infecting others and perpetuating the pandemic, which is why you shouldn’t do it, even if you aren’t afraid for yourself.
Being obese? Smoking? After all, both of those are the direct result of your choices and less dependent on other people than getting a virus.
Most people say "Oh, that would never happen!" but if we have a time where rationing healthcare becomes the norm or even just vital, it will just as it did in Italy a few months back.
'you should support blm and adjacent causes from home through donating without putting more people and lives at risk'
Why is "Reopen all the things!" the only solution, though?
Part of the reason why people got angry is because none of the people involved around the cosplaytriots wanted to consider any other options, and there are many.
1) The fact that losing your job costs you your healthcare is a political problem. The government can decide to extend healthcare by fiat, expand access, or several other choices.
2) The fact that people weren't getting paid unemployment that they filed for is a problem.
3) If you really believed in choice, give people $2,000 per month unconditionally but allow them to choose whether they wish to go back to work. Now we can see the free market in action.
Instead, the only thing on the cosplaytriot protest agenda was "Stay home and die or get back to work and possibly die". That's not exactly a protest sentiment that's going to get much grass roots support.
Putting a gun to people's heads is going to make them angry.
There is no equivalent safety net for people who are victims of positional asphyxia.
Why should anyone be criticised for denying this so-called "science" when the people who made it are now openly denying it as well?
Science should not be a partisan topic. Mistakes get made, but those should be learning opportunities rather than a chance to discredit your "opponent".
Whether such outcome is desirable vs the trade-offs is not a scientific fact as desirability only exists in the minds of each individual.
Science has found no universal "utility" function that applies to all humans. As such its impossible for science to maximize utility, or in laymens terms "outcomes" globally for all humans. We must choose what we find important and there is no scientific tool to do so.
Once you've decided what's important sure you can apply science to help you make the best decisions to achieve that outcome.
The most science can tell you is what are the consequences of some act. Deciding if they are good or bad and if they are worth taking is a completely politic act.
Perhaps as we better understand the brain that may change.
This isn't a fair question, people will protest and go back to their lock down down life. Reopening is sustained interaction.
Anyway I’m not worried for myself, I’m gonna be fine in all likelihood—it’s my at-risk friends and family.
having a physically distant beer with a friend (assuming an uncrowded bar, as is required in most places) is quite low risk. geting hammered and carrying on with a bunch of in-your-face strangers is not.
just avoid exchanging spit with strangers. being outside is the easiest and best method, and maintaining a little distance is a close second. wear a mask indoors if you can't maintain distance. it's easy.
then you can set the fear aside and move on with your life.
ehhh I wouldn't be so sure about that.
I’m not going to claim that these were all retributive, but I can certainly understand the paranoia—legal protections only exist on paper.
do you honestly believe that a little rag in front of your mouth will reduce the spread in big crowd everyone screaming at the same time?
the protest might just prove false all the scaremongering, this is what I see very as a likely outcome
and that the disease does not propagate outdoors, that the disease does not propage by touch etc.
Where is an instance of a study that indicates the opposite? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
> the authors note that the findings on face masks and eye protection are based on limited evidence
You also have to consider second-order effects like a sense of invulnerability from the mask and added social interactions because people feel safer. Those haven't been studied.
There is a lot of truth in this.
In any war there is a level of acceptable losses. For most of the spring, the modern culture wars were on hold and there were no hills worth taking. Now there is something going on that has the potential for long term consequences, so the level of acceptable losses has gone up.
Ask me to take a risk because it is good for the economy and I'll tell you to fuck off. Ask me to take a risk to help reform violent police forces that oppress minorities and I'm more willing to do it.
Let me explain some of the consequences.
In the UK people have been pulling out their own teeth with pliars because the dentists weren't allowed to be open, not even for emergency surgery. It was "too dangerous" for dentists to be close to their patients.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-devon-52321910
https://metro.co.uk/2020/05/20/mum-tried-pull-tooth-when-cou...
In India, all the factories and shops were closed. But because it's India the government wasn't able to replace people's incomes overnight. Those people started to starve so they tried to go back to their home villages, in the hopes of getting some food from the land. But because of the lockdown they couldn't get transport either, so they started to walk, in some cases they tried to walk hundreds of miles. And some of them died because of it.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-52086274
In the UK there's now a backlog of 2.4 million cancer tests or treatments. There's no obvious way to catch up and some people will die because of it.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8374697/2-4-million...
The economy is defined, literally, as every service or product people sell each other. But sure, it's also just a minor thing that doesn't matter.
All these meetings are meaningless, because they do not address several problems:
1. There is a serious neglect of educational system in black neighborhoods. There is no discipline in the schools in these areas. There is a lot of push from ultra-left to keep the things as they are "because this is black culture"; lots of ultra-left derive political capital off of misery of minorities - if there was no misery, there would have been nothing to fight against, to become somehow important.
2) Most of black people are killed by the black people in their neighborhoods. The numbers are of different maginitude when compared to police brutality. If the protesters were really concerned about well-being of black minority, they should have argued for better policing, security cameras, better schools, better foodstores in these areas. ASk any protester if they would part with their monety for that cause, raise taxes for exmpale, NO way, They would not.
Does what someone think make their assembly invalid?
Point out above where GP said those assemblies were invalid. Pro tip: they did not.
Their right to assembly is not fundamentally invalidated, but the protesters are certainly open to a variety of critiques.