Remind me - was there a huge outbreak as a result of the protest marches? Because even at that time it was understood that INDOOR transmission was much, much more effective than outdoor.
Replies
That wasn't know at the time. It was, ironically given this conversation, the lack of outbreaks after those protests that indicated relatively close quarters outside could be safe. But -- key point -- that was NOT KNOWN going in.
sep 1, 2025, 5:56 pm • 1 0 • view
We wore masks.
sep 1, 2025, 5:57 pm • 0 0 • view
Irrelevant. Other large outdoor gatherings were prohibited whether or not people wore masks.
sep 1, 2025, 5:59 pm • 2 0 • view
Correct.
sep 1, 2025, 6:00 pm • 2 0 • view
The texas an Missouri state goverments were controlled by elitist liberal epidemiologists, then?
sep 1, 2025, 8:20 pm • 0 0 • view
(her mask is down around her neck ...) (he's got a *dust mask* on ...) (next row back it's over the mouth and not the nose ...)
sep 1, 2025, 6:13 pm • 0 0 • view
I’ve completely lost track of why we’re talking about this. Some people in government gave advice 5 years ago about a newly diagnosed illness that turned out not to be that bad…
sep 1, 2025, 7:28 pm • 0 0 • view
I guess it's that they didn't try to stop mass spontaneous protests about a white cop torturing a black man to death on camera over 10 minutes, and people on the Right used it as an excuse to be the revolting, execrable people they were going to be anyway.
sep 1, 2025, 7:32 pm • 1 0 • view
The right was already doing that. Like in the Michigan state house. *Before* George Floyd was murdered. Tom isn't claiming protest and resistance from the right against covid restrictions was because of how health experts OK'd George Floyd protests.
sep 1, 2025, 7:37 pm • 1 0 • view
It's about integrity of advice by experts (public health experts in this case) and public trust. Not about what the right does, esp. re covid which was insane.
sep 1, 2025, 7:38 pm • 2 0 • view
Tom's basic point is how public health experts were *at the time* advising against any large gathering. Outdoors too. But, come the George Floyd protests, the advice changed explicitly because it was for a cause they supported. That hurt their credibility, and faith in experts in general.
sep 1, 2025, 7:32 pm • 1 0 • view
News reports from the time suggest otherwise.
sep 1, 2025, 6:02 pm • 2 0 • view
Law varied by state on the topic of masking outdoors and social distancing www.cnn.com/2020/06/19/u...
sep 1, 2025, 6:27 pm • 3 1 • view
To the extent that's true it doesn't make the point you seem to think it does. If true they should have dropped the outdoor gathering restrictions for everyone rather than just for people supporting one specific cause.
sep 1, 2025, 6:34 pm • 0 0 • view
I suspect a lot of public health folks looked at the righteous fury driving the protests - a white cop casually murdering a black man on camera, over the course of nearly 10 minutes - and realized there was not much they could do. Should they "prohibit" the protests and send cops to stop them?
sep 1, 2025, 6:41 pm • 1 0 • view
bsky.app/profile/ri.o...
sep 1, 2025, 6:43 pm • 0 0 • view
And I'm pretty sure that there was a mix of the two at the time, and people who want to grind the axe of "But muh church!" will only remember one of them.
sep 1, 2025, 6:47 pm • 1 0 • view
Did you even bother to check this for yourself before posting this BS?
sep 1, 2025, 5:41 pm • 0 0 • view
That wasn't understood *at the time* though. The guidance turned right around about public gatherings, explicitly because of the "importance of the demonstrations".
sep 1, 2025, 5:53 pm • 4 0 • view
And the people taking part in the demonstrations opposed Donald Trump and so were not afraid to wear masks
sep 1, 2025, 5:56 pm • 1 0 • view