From where I sit, I think they pretty well explained why they think the BLM marches in the wake of George Floyd's murder were justified. I certainly wouldn't say they had "emotional or manipulative motivations", a characterization which seems completely off base.
Can you point me to the study for public health outcome differences from protests vs going to church. And what what their scietific criteria for where to draw the line was.
"As the pandemic ushered in isolation and financial hardship, overdose deaths reached new heights" [1]
Again, What is their basis for what is ok and what is not. Emotions. correct?
Who are they to decide which population is expendable.
1. https://www.statnews.com/2021/02/16/as-pandemic-ushered-in-i...
But I don't think doctors are making decisions about advice based on emotions. COVID-19 is the most likely cause of death for people 25-44 [1] (supplanting unintentional opioid overdose deaths). COVID-19 has a hugely disproportionate effect on communities of color [2]. Systemic racism also causes deaths; look at asthma for example [3].
Finally, even the CDC is kind of at a loss as to what to do about overdose deaths [4]. Essentially they're like "get more naloxone and get more treatment."
> Who are they to decide which population is expendable.
I get where you're coming from here but, I don't think it's as simple as "lockdowns kill people" because:
- Not imposing a lockdown also kills people
- Even in the absence of a lockdown order, people are hesitant to get together
- There are lots of ways to socialize and get outside that are very low risk (pods, outdoor activities)
- COVID-19 deaths are far, far outstripping opioid overdose deaths due to lockdowns (the numbers I've found show that COVID-19 deaths exceed all opioid overdose deaths, not just the total YoY increase).
But if I could summarize what I think your points have been, I think your argument is broadly that doctors treated George Floyd's murder and the subsequent protests differently than hardships in other communities, and that at least indicates some level of emotional reaction if not outright bias. But I think they themselves have explained why they reacted differently, and I think the data (gathered by medical researchers and social scientists) back them up.
[1]: https://www.news-medical.net/news/20201026/COVID-19-now-like...
[2]: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/09/16/covid-...
[3]: https://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=4&lvlid=1...
[4]: https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/p1218-overdose-death...
Are you saying that they calculated
deaths caused by covid protests < deaths prevented from potests effecting health outcomes of POC.
Hence Protests OK.
deaths from depression caused from isolation < deaths from covid
Isolation OK.
If so, can you show me how they calculated,
'deaths prevented from potests effecting health outcomes of POC'
> > I think the data (gathered by medical researchers and social scientists) back them up.
what data is this ? There is no way they gathered any data within 1 week of when the protests started. Thats just too crazy of a timeline. If they are saying that collected some secret data to prove that protests will save more lives than lockdowns in less than week, then that proves how brazen they are in in their lying.
From your cnn link
'"Prepare for an increased number of infections in the days following a protest," the letter says. '
> “The right to live, the right to breathe, the right to walk down the street without police coming at you for no reason . . . that’s different than me wanting to go to my place of worship on the weekend, me wanting to take my kid on a roller coaster, me wanting to go to brunch with my friends.”
This is obviously an emotional response. She didn't do A/B testing of various activity outcomes on public health and base her conclusions on that. Can't somone simply say going to church is good for metal health of the population, she didn't obviously measure the outcomes of that activity.