really? And many thousands of protesters all across the country (many not wearing masks and certainly not social distancing) aren't a 'superspreading event'?
I don't think I've even seen one article mentioning it...because racism.
I don't think I've even seen one article mentioning it...because racism.
Your comment is just ridiculous political pandering, trying to focus the topic other events that aren't similar in the slightest.
I think the biggest difference is the protests skewed young and motorcycle rallies skew boomer.
+1 for the boomer skew.
Now for my generally useless tidbit, In my city it was very hot and humid during the early summer protests. Mask compliance was probably about 50/50, with most of the folks not complying were wearing them incorrectly or taking them on and off repeatedly. Demonstrators used the time as an opportunity to socialize and share meals, with lots of incidental physical contact.
The data and official guidance I have seen supports the idea that masks (and being outdoors) significantly reduces risk.
The data I've seen suggests that being outdoor reduces risks, I have not need any data or studies that compare being outdoor with or without a mask. I'd love to read your studies if you have them.
The inside/outside dynamic is not the only part of the location that matters for the dangers these events present. The big protests mainly occurred in big cities and were mainly attended by locals. The Sturgis rally happens in the middle of nowhere, people come from all over, and then head back home to places that are generally more rural. Sturgis is therefore much more likely to spread the virus to people and places who wouldn't have had much exposure otherwise.
Also we can't have this conversation while ignoring the false equivalency of these two events. There is a fundamental difference in the urgency of attending a protest versus attending the Sturgis rally. If they both presented the exact same danger to the population, Sturgis would still be a more egregious gathering due to being an entertainment event. We are in the middle of a pandemic. We can cut down on these large entertainment gatherings whether it is Sturgis or Coachella.
The constitution deliberately makes no such distinction.
From a moral perspective, getting people killed in order to have some fun is less defensible than getting people killed in support of civil rights. I wouldn't think that is a controversial statement.
The relevance is obvious.
These are enumerations, not distinctions. One person's right to protest is not of any more importance than another's right to associate freely at a motorcycle rally.
That's irrelevant. The virus doesn't care about the urgency. If both presented the exact same danger to the population, they should be handled exactly the same. Otherwise we are not arguing science but politics.
The Sturgis rally is on the long list of things we can skip for a year because its importance does not justify the risks involved.
As an example, NYC contact tracers were forbidden[1] to ask if people attended a protest.
[1]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/nyc-s-contact-tracers-have...
Statistics can be looked at in aggregate. Infections did not go up in areas with large protests.
Refusing to collect that data point is completely understandable from a public health standpoint. There is substantiated concern that people may end up on cop shitlists for attending a protest, we know that there is police overreach, and the only way to keep the pigs out of the trough is not providing it at all. NYPD is notoriously corrupt. If any single person ended up being harassed by the cops as a result for telling the truth no one will ever work with a contact tracer again.
Sad that the cops can't restrain themselves in a time of public emergency but that's the reality we live in.
https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/13388/black-lives-matter...
> "we find no evidence that urban protests reignited COVID-19 case growth during the more than three weeks following protest onset. We conclude that predictions of broad negative public health consequences of Black Lives Matter protests were far too narrowly conceived."
https://academic.oup.com/jpubhealth/advance-article/doi/10.1...