
A protest of 600k people will result in between 200 and 1100 eventual deaths - elsewhen
https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/1269533312759918592
======
Traster
This is a very interesting thread with a lot of elements to it. One of the
interesting take-aways from it is that the reason this effect is so high is
because the US is doing such a poor job of controlling COVID in the first
place - so a small increase in infections causes a huge long tail of
spreading. The people who get infected at the protest go home and then the
disease spreads from them for a long time because the ordinary measures to
control the virus aren't very effective. In a country doing a better job of
dealing with the virus in the first place this effect would be massively
reduced.

~~~
TechBro8615
Could this be addressed by advising people who have attended a protest to
self-quarantine for two weeks?

I imagine that if Trump held a press conference with Dr Birx and Dr Fauci,
where they advised protestors to stay home for two weeks after attending a
protest, he might face some backlash. But at the same time, he gets backlash
for “mishandling the Coronavirus.” So it’s politically untenable for him to
give the scientific advice to stay home after protesting. He’s damned if he
does, damned if he doesn’t.

IMO this reveals some hypocrisy on the part of the media pundits painting
these narratives, but I digress...

~~~
Traster
Well I don't think we should be making rules for protests. The risks with
protests are exactly the same as the risks on public transport or visiting a
coffee shop. You risk coming into contact with someone who is infected. That's
why the contact tracing is so important. If someone starts suggesting you
should isolate simply for attending a rally then the obvious question is
should you isolate if you visit a packed casino, or even the Republican
National Convention?

------
totony
It's interesting how manifestations about the lockdown were looked down by the
majority of the people I've interacted with due to the danger of spreading the
disease, but I have not seen most people associate that same risk to the blm
protests.

Nor have I seen the egoist label being thrown around. I highly dislike the
polarisation people have come to; if I agree with you it's ok, if I disagree
you, I question your right to protest and label you an egoist.

~~~
kerkeslager
> It's interesting how manifestations about the lockdown were looked down by
> the majority of the people I've interacted with due to the danger of
> spreading the disease, but I have not seen most people associate that same
> risk to the blm protests.

This sentence is almost incoherent, but if what you're trying to say is that
people aren't recognizing that BLM protests might spread coronavirus: here's a
prominent Democratic leader associating the BLM protests with spreading the
coronavirus:

[https://newyork.cbslocal.com/video/4581115-gov-cuomo-
again-u...](https://newyork.cbslocal.com/video/4581115-gov-cuomo-again-urges-
protesters-to-get-tested-for-coronavirus/)

~~~
TechBro8615
If you’re going to cherry pick opinions, you may as well include the letter
from 1,200 health “experts” who effectively called the protests a worthwhile
risk.

[https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/05/health/health-care-open-
lette...](https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/05/health/health-care-open-letter-
protests-coronavirus-trnd/index.html)

~~~
kerkeslager
totony said, "I have not seen most people associate that same risk to the blm
protests."

Seems like you just posted 1200 more people who have associated Coronavirus
risk with the BLM protests.

You may disagree with people about whether the risk of spreading Coronavirus
is worth it, but don't accuse the left of not recognizing that there are
risks.

------
jakelazaroff
Title quibble: coronavirus deaths, specifically, not as a property of protests
in general.

~~~
LUmBULtERA
Also, the estimate is 200-1100 coronavirus deaths per day as a result of the
protests, not 200-1100 total deaths.

"...200-1100 deaths per day of protests."

~~~
xsmasher
I read that as "for each day or protests," not "each day going forward."

------
squarefoot
> but I have not seen most people associate that same risk to the blm
> protests.

They know of the risks, but they also know that racism, fascism, police
brutality, and subsequent immunity for the latter, are much much much worse to
the society than Covid-19, HIV, Ebola and all other combined together,
including cancer (1). They don't go away like some virii, they can't be cured
like some virii, they don't need physical/blood contact or vicinity to spread,
and no lockdown would reduce the risks of "infection". All it needs in their
case is corrupt rulers, corrupt press and corrupt law enforcement officers,
all enablers that can do damage from whatever distance they wish.

(1- if any of you have a similar serious illness I'm truly sorry about that,
but please don't lecture me on the sufferings compared to getting hit by a
baton. I have direct detailed accounts from who helps every f'ing day terminal
cancer patients and I'm well aware of it, so please try to understand my point
instead, thanks)

~~~
totony
My main point wasn't avout the awareness of the risks (although I have not
seen muvh coverage on it).

I understand the risk-analysis, but the people protesting/disagreeing with the
lockdown also did the same thing.

There is a sharp contrast in how the blm risk analysis is accepted whereas
people were denying that the early protesters had even the right to make that
analysis.

------
dTal
I think the framing of police brutality and racism as a public health issue is
one I've not seen before. It's quite interesting because it gives an
apolitical basis for assessing the question of whether the protests are a good
idea (albeit one that doesn't take into account all factors, such as
discrimination that doesn't lead to physical injury).

------
ac29
Its important to take this napkin math with a grain of salt, as even the
author admits they could be wildly off with even a small change in
transmission rates: "Swapping R0 from 0.95 to 0.9 would decrease estimated
downstream infections from 54k-108k to 30k-60k and estimated downstream deaths
from 270-1080 to 150-600. Generally, these back-of-the-envelop calculations
should be taken with a huge grain of salt. We don't yet have data."

There is also an unstated assumption that none of these people would get
infected if they didnt attend the protests, which seems like a big omission.

