What ever the answer is (and I don’t think there’s a non-partisan one), we’re screwed. Hopefully we’ll get new data on masks giving us a 80/20 solution since I don’t think either side of the political divide is going to buy the stay-at-home order much longer. “How come they can break it but we can’t?”

We are screwed. Partisanship has been extended to such a degree that it guarantees that "both sides" remain opposed.

Science should not be a partisan topic. Mistakes get made, but those should be learning opportunities rather than a chance to discredit your "opponent".

Science is partisan because its being misapplied. It cannot tell you what you should do, that is the realm of leadership. All it can say is whether a course of action may lead to a certain outcome.

Whether such outcome is desirable vs the trade-offs is not a scientific fact as desirability only exists in the minds of each individual.

Your comment seems to actually mean that “science is partisan the moment it is being applied at all.”

No, and this is core to the point:

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.

Well, science is partisan the moment it is being applied at all.

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.

Don’t get me wrong. I agree with the thrust of what you’re saying. It’s just that the parent said it was partisan because it was being misapplied as opposed to applied at all. I was trying to point out the contradiction in the comment. That’s all.

I do believe you can apply science once a goal or desired outcome is decided upon. There is no known science that can help you come to a goal. E.g. science can't tell you that we should reduce pollution but can help if we decide that's a worthy goal and worth the tradeoffs.

Perhaps as we better understand the brain that may change.

The anti lock down people were allowed to protest. With weapons publicly displayed too...

This isn't a fair question, people will protest and go back to their lock down down life. Reopening is sustained interaction.

There was a lot of science denialism in those protests, conspiracy theories, and (based anecdotally on photos which are the best we have to go on) mask usage seemed a lot lower.

But now we're seeing science denialism on a whole other scale. Over a thousand "scientists" signed a document that says protests for their preferred causes aren't risky, but protests against their policies are.

Why should anyone be criticised for denying this so-called "science" when the people who made it are now openly denying it as well?

Also, whilst mass gatherings themselves can act as a vector for disease transmission regardless of what the cause is and despite some forms of masks, the objection to the lockdown protests wasn't that participants might put themselves and their immediate families at risk so much as their stated goal was to end the lockdown, and thus see millions of people not involved in the protest expected to go back to work and encouraged to socialise.

> the first group was protesting not being able to go to Applebee's

This is such a terribly uncharitable assumption and ruins any sort of ability to have reasoned discourse.

Are you aware how many people are unemployed in this nation right now because of the lockdown? Are you aware how many people’s businesses are destroyed, shut down permanently? And your assumption is that the only reason anybody could be upset is because they can’t go to their favorite restaurant!?

These protests are going to result in the deaths of thousands of people. They are clearly irresponsible during a pandemic. Gathering in large groups with no physical distancing is tantamount to conspiring to commit mass murder.

The problem of racial inequality has existed for "hundreds of years" so why not push the protests back 1 year so it won't unnecessarily cost many people their lives?

There is no reasonable suggestion that police will kill thousands of innocent black people in the next 12 months. There is no actual emergency here that can justify killing thousands of people.

It is incredibly obvious that the urgency here is false. The false urgency is driven by pandemic-related issues like stress and unemployment. Anyone can see how clearly thse protests have become an outlet for a number of issues, only one of which is racial inequality.

It is possible to fully support racial equality, elimination of poverty, and modernization of policing and also believe these protests have been carried out in an incredibly unethical and irresponsible way.

Claiming to support a good cause does not make it okay to inflict death on innocent people.

Could you please stop creating accounts for every few comments you post? We ban accounts that do that. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

You needn't use your real name, of course, but for HN to be a community, users need some identity for other users to relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be a different kind of forum. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

Look up the Massachusettes death rates.

https://www.mass.gov/doc/covid-19-dashboard-june-7-2020/down...

In the age group of under 50 years old, the death rate due to COVID 19 is 10 out 100,000 (!), that is half of that attributed to the flu, no seriously

it is very unlikely that the protest will have much effect

if everyone that protested self isolates at all other times for 20 days after they stop protesting, yes, I agree.

Edit: The parent edited their comment with no edit note, so my comment might not make as much sense because it remains unchanged

There is a lot to unpack here but I will do my best.

> I shouldn't have to say this but people these days: I fully supports racial equality, elimination of poverty, and modernization of policing in the U.S.

It doesn’t appear that you do, as you are actively speaking out against an anti-racist movement supported by hundreds of millions of people around the world.

> The problem has existed for "hundreds of years" so why not push the protests back 1 year so it won't unnecessarily cost many people their lives?

This is not how social movements work. You can’t just “push it back”. Additionally, black people a disproportionately affected by the coronavirus, so these issues are not completely separate.

> It seems incredibly obvious that the urgency here if false

I suspect you feel this way because you are not an affected demographic. The police have been terrorizing and murdering black people in their own neighborhoods for hundreds of years. If this was happening to you, I’m sure it would feel ‘urgent’. Additionally, the president of the most powerful country in the history of the world has literally been calling for the military to kill protesters and labeling them as terrorists. This is incredibly scary and I’d say speaking out against this is very urgent.

> they were protesting because many of them thought the virus was a hoax or because they couldn’t get a hair cut or buy lawn fertilizer.

This is such a terribly uncharitable assumption and ruins any sort of ability to have reasoned discourse. Are you aware how many people are unemployed in this nation right now because of the lockdown? Are you aware how many people’s businesses are destroyed, shut down permanently? And your assumption is that the only reason anybody could be upset is because they can’t do low-priority things!?

there is no difference to covid, it doesn't ask 'oh were you protesting the right thing?'

5 Plain clothed police officers break into your house and execute your wife or daughter in their bed, then say it was a mistake and walk away scott-free (no charges)...

Would you stay quiet and wait for the covid threat to die down before protesting or taking action?

This happened in Seattle like 10 years ago to a white guy. It’s horrible. All these things are horrible. Absolutely disgusting and inexcusable.

It is also a tiny fraction of the number of deaths from the virus.

Also no one demonstrated regarding that guy. I wish people would have. Maybe we could have reformed no knock warrants, and the people you are referring to would still be alive.

>Would you stay quiet and wait for the covid threat to die down before protesting or taking action?

Absolutely. The only reason you'd ignore a pandemic and risk your life (and the lives of your friends and remaining family) is an expected and completely valid emotional response. That doesn't mean it's the right thing to do (or safe), though.

I wouldn't risk being directly responsible for killing more people (especially people I know and their circles) just to protest something a few months earlier than I should.

Because they compared governors to Hitler and their plight to how Jews were persecuted during the Holocaust. They also lynched an effigy of a politician they despised. That is why they were the crazy ones.

But there are clear enforceability issues with trying to establish "protests are allowed unless they're crazy" as a rule. Who gets to decide what's crazy?

and that is why the right to assemble is called an inherent right. it is owned and arbitrated ONLY by the individual. I know that this stuff seemed so boring in civics class, but it is all really rational. You cannot limit free assembly, because that limitation would have to be arbitrated. If it is arbitrated it must be arbitrated by the government. If it is arbitrated by the government the government can become corrupt and self serving and arbitrate based on self-interest... ie. TYRANNY. So it must be the individual that decides. And there are always and perpetually costs and challenges created by this arrangement, but it is the only alternative to tyranny.

Not getting a haircut won't kill you, the police will. Also, for the most part, anti-racism protestors are wearing masks, anti-lockdown people, for the most part, are not.

Losing your livelihood can kill you, however. If you are a small business owner, for example, and it's illegal to operate that business, your life is also in danger and your situation deserves empathy. Empathy is not finite resource. We can extend it to all people in bad situations, not just people we prefer.

Which is why the federal government passed a never-before-seen stimulus package that included forgivable small business loans and expanded unemployment income.

There is no equivalent safety net for people who are victims of positional asphyxia.

I know several small businesses that are closed forever despite that bill. Many reasons why, I’m sure; however, the most cited one I’ve heard is that the monies had too many strings tied to uncertain outcomes whereby the business owner could end up still out there f business but also with debt that they wont be able to service.

> If you are a small business owner, for example, and it's illegal to operate that business, your life is also in danger and your situation deserves empathy

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.

no, this is not about empathy but personal autonomy and sovereignity and autocracy. Why not allow someone to do something if they are willing to take the risk, why treat them as criminals?

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?

> Why not allow someone to do something if they are willing to take the risk, why treat them as criminals?

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.

Presumably said people would be willing to forfeit medical treatment and quietly die at home if they did catch it?

I've been considering this line of reasoning for a while: if opening your business disqualifies you from medical treatment, what else does?

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.

Much of that purported "willing" is driven by an involuntary need to service debt. Without acknowledging this, it's disingenuous to talk about the shutdowns in terms of autonomy. I'd wager that the shutdowns actually allowed more people to act with their desires than they prevented. For example had the shutdowns not occurred, how many companies that are pure WFH right now would have just continued telling everyone to come into the office?

you could make the same case for the current wave of protests

'you should support blm and adjacent causes from home through donating without putting more people and lives at risk'

What exactly do you mean by "people we prefer"? I am unclear on the meaning and motive of your language.

> Losing your livelihood can kill you, however.

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.