Ask HN: Why are we still under lockdown if mass protests are allowed? - xoxoy
======
nostrademons
Because banning protests would create a serious 1st amendment constitutional
question.

It was the same with the Reopen protests - they were allowed, just stupid.
Health authorities say the same thing here - a lot of people are going to get
COVID-19 from the civil unrest going on now, and ideally they should be
quarantining themselves for 2 weeks.

FWIW, I support the BLM movement but I'm not going to any protests, largely
because of the prospect for COVID-19 infection. We've been avoiding seeing
friends because of coronavirus; we're not going to stand shoulder to shoulder
with shouting strangers right now, no matter how much we support the cause.

------
legerdemain
I've seen this chain of reasoning a few times from different people now, and I
have no idea how it follows: "someone broke a rule, so we have to throw out
all the rules now."

The claim that lockdowns are somehow invalid now just says that, since we have
experienced some setbacks on epidemic controls, we must throw epidemic
controls out the window. I'm not seeing the logical connection. If a medical
patient misses a dose of medication, doctors don't stop treating the patient.

We couldn't stop protests from happening. We've tried gassing the protestors,
yelling at them, shooting them, beating them, and pushing them around with
cars and riot shields, and those control measures haven't been completely
successful. We may also have some legal protections for this kind of activity,
I think.

And if the plight of people who live in daily fear of being curb-stomped or
killed by the police is the same as your desire for a haircut, either your
haircuts are very expensive or your well-being is only worth $20.

