|
|
|
|
|
by briandear
2213 days ago
|
|
Was everyone wearing masks and practicing social distancing of at least 6 feet? Weren’t we told that the reopen protesters were putting people at risk by protesting from their cars? I don’t disagree with the reason for protest, but if a church can’t be open, even outdoors, and an extended family picnic is illegal in a public park, then I am not sure the rationale for allowing protests now. The first amendment isn’t conditional on the reasons for gathering or speaking. The mayor of Oakland even supported the protests held there while just recently maintaining that “non-essential” businesses couldn’t open. I am just trying to reconcile why a small restaurant in Oakland can’t be open, but thousands of people marching in a massive group is somehow allowed. And it seems, politically speaking that a similar demographic that was just days ago telling everyone to stay home to protect us from the plague suddenly changed their public health tune as soon as something they care about was the issue. Are the lockdowns optional now? Are they situational depending on the politics of the event? Because it sure seems like it. Georgia got hammered for reopening too early, but nobody had much to say about Atlanta having massive protests over the past days. Either the lockdowns are unnecessary or they are necessary and people are putting public health at serious risk with these “large gatherings.” I wish we could reboot 2020. It’s a g-damned mess. |
|
So, yes, context matters. I would absolutely argue the value in the being part of the strongest push against police brutality in decades, that just might result in systemic change, is incredibly more worthy than virtually any other activity. It does not mean there is no public health cost. It does mean it is a tragic choice to have to make.