So I get it it’s a short term push to get recognition but if the pandemic is as bad as they say it means many people will be hospitalized or worse.
Of course it’s a devils bargain, damnned if you do, damnned if you don’t, but it’s still present.
I'm not sure if you mean "they can't join the protests when sick" or "they can't protest getting sick from doing this". For the former, I imagine those that are technically can if they really want to. For the latter, those that aren't are seemingly willing to take the risk of getting sick in order to help address this.
> it means many people will be hospitalized or worse.
Yes, they seem willing to risk that consequence.
No, it's not. The ones that are protesting are also being ordered to disperse and go back home. The reason they're not is because they're disobeying.
For those that aren't explicitly ordered, it's because it's pointless, given that civil disobedience is in the nature of protests.
On a more personal note, my 98 year old Grandma has been confined to her room at the nursing home for three months. Good luck to her civil disobeying orders.
Exactly. The fact that you can't effectively do a sizeable protest around that so goes to show how the population in general prioritizes these issues.
> On a more personal note, my 98 year old Grandma has been confined to her room at the nursing home for three months. Good luck to her civil disobeying orders.
Yeah, public support for your grandma risking getting sick is going to be even less.
It's not clear to me that these are equivalent, nor do I see why they necessarily should be. The impact to the average life expectancy of a few young people dying could be as large or larger than several times more old people dying.
I agree that when determining the best public policy. One has to weigh the risks and rewards. And the difference in life expectancy is relevant to that discussion.
These individuals are making public policy decisions when they weigh one of these concerns against the other. As participants in a democracy, there's no way to avoid making such decisions.
Is the argument that we should accept another 100,000 COVID-19 deaths to prevent even one more police death?
The people protesting the lock-downs appeared to largely be protesting lifestyle inconvenience. Whether that was the actual case or not, I don't know and I'd love to learn more from any sources you could share.
I'm not trying to say that people shouldn't protest. I'm only pointing out that a lot of people who are very pro police brutality protests right now were 5 minutes ago saying that protesting lock downs and going out is tantamount to murdering grandma.
> Minorities are also disproportionately impacted by the pandemic...
Is there any evidence that this is a result of racism? We are seeing the same elevated impact on blacks in other countries.
> The people protesting the lock-downs appeared to largely be protesting lifestyle inconvenience
It's more of protesting the government destroying peoples' livelihoods by driving their small businesses into the ground. Moreover, it is an unconstitutional overreach.
Where we disagree with some people is the generalized notion that the principles of America are inherently evil and racist and that Americans society now in general is racist.
That seems right, although I think there is probably a small degree of overlap. Unfortunately, I'm still seeing multitudes of people online defending the rioting and looting.