Coronavirus

[Elite]

Sturgis now linked to an estimated 250k cases of covid at a public health cost of over 12 billion dollars.

"We conclude that the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally generated public health costs of approximately $12.2 billion," the researchers wrote in a paper. "This is enough to have paid each of the estimated 462,182 rally attendees $26,553.64 not to attend."

I did not attend. Does this mean I get free money?

[Stadler]

Sturgis was a huge party essentially, lots of eating and drinking.  Protests are more of a gathering.  So while both are large groups of people, one isn't really socializing for significant period of time without masks. (can't drink a beer with a mask on)

Or eat ass.  I mean, c'mon. 

[The Walrus]

My ass was just tingling. Who's eating ass?

[cramx3]

Sturgis was a huge party essentially, lots of eating and drinking.  Protests are more of a gathering.  So while both are large groups of people, one isn't really socializing for significant period of time without masks. (can't drink a beer with a mask on)

Or eat ass.  I mean, c'mon.

And I'm sure there was lots of that going on too.  I just can't compare a party atmosphere to a protest.  The way people socialize at parties is exactly the way this virus spreads.  Wearing a mask and just being close to many people outdoors has so far not been a way of mass spreading the disease.  If someone has some stats to show that protests have drove up the number of cases, that could change my opinion but I haven't seen any of that data.

[gmillerdrake]

  If someone has some stats to show that protests have drove up the number of cases, that could change my opinion but I haven't seen any of that data.

That was kind of the point I was trying to make.....but poorly. I don't think there is a massive effort going on to determine how much Covid is being spread due to these protests. The mass protests and subsequent days/weeks of rioting and unrest seem to be immune to the criticisms that many other entities/individuals etc etc face when it comes to recognizing and implementing the safety features that are recommended for Covid. Sturgis was certainly easy to single out due to the attitude of the participants but the protest movement in general gets a free pass and it's a pretty glaring example of the hypocrisy of the media.

[Elite]

Without making this too political (or else this should move to the P&R Subforum), I'm not sure I'm following your line of logic there. Mass events that are planned beforehand are a stupidly bad idea when you know there's a global pandemic that you help spread by organising a nationwide event. In most other Western countries (and probably the whole world at the moment) mass gatherings are not allowed for that exact reason. People not giving a shit at all and going anyway (the whole event even taking place) and not adhering to any rules whatsoever is at the very least inconsiderate and probably anti-social. Protest are not 'planned' in that same sense, they don't attract people from all over the country to a single spot and they're not the same sort of social gathering that a festival would be.

[The Walrus]

Also the protests are pretty important and the Sturgis rally isn't important at all. Risk your health and safety to make your voice heard and be part of an important movement, or risk your health and safety to go to the Sturgis rally to possibly eat ass or get your ass eaten?

[gmillerdrake]

Without making this too political (or else this should move to the P&R Subforum), I'm not sure I'm following your line of logic there. Mass events that are planned beforehand are a stupidly bad idea when you know there's a global pandemic that you help spread by organising a nationwide event. In most other Western countries (and probably the whole world at the moment) mass gatherings are not allowed for that exact reason. People not giving a shit at all and going anyway (the whole event even taking place) and not adhering to any rules whatsoever is at the very least inconsiderate and probably anti-social. Protest are not 'planned' in that same sense, they don't attract people from all over the country to a single spot and they're not the same sort of social gathering that a festival would be.

I don't disagree with you. Sturgis and/or events like it shouldn't be allowed to happen right now. My point is/was there hasn't been much of an effort to attain data on how the many protests that have taken place have helped spread Covid. It doesn't seem like it's a real priority or concern. Like Adami said.....it'd be a difficult ask to attain and track down the people involved but the protests in general seemed to be encouraged despite large gatherings in general being discouraged. While some protests are pop up there are quite a few that are planned in advance as well.....and/or that last days that invite and draw people in from all over the country.

Also the protests are pretty important and the Sturgis rally isn't important at all. Risk your health and safety to make your voice heard and be part of an important movement, or risk your health and safety to go to the Sturgis rally to possibly eat ass or get your ass eaten?

The level of importance really doesn't matter if they're both claiming 'rights'   I'm not arguing that Sturgis is more important than protests....not at all....but they both use 'rights' as a backbone of why they did/do it.

[The Walrus]

Personally I think the level of importance does matter when the protests are about civil rights and police brutality and the other event is just a festival, but you're right about 'rights', of course.

[cramx3]

My point is/was there hasn't been much of an effort to attain data on how the many protests that have taken place have helped spread Covid.

Because there weren't reports of hot spots and contact tracing that lead to the protests being a spreader event.  The data just doesnt show this happened.

I was really curious when those protests started happening, I expected outbreaks but they didn't happen.  I think it just goes to show as more evidence that being outside and wearing masks aren't so dangerous to spreading.  Sturgis was very anti-mask.

https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2020/07/06/protests#:~:text=When%20mass%20protests%20erupted%20nationwide,the%20protests%20to%20new%20outbreaks.

[Shadow Ninja 2.0]

I think people in authority definitely could have been a bit more involved in saying 'OK, protest, but please wear masks,' and maybe there should have been more of that from the media as well? But to be honest, I think people who blame this on 'media bias' are a bit off base. Sturgis is only a story because of coronavirus and the implications of their gathering, as well as the fact that they seem to be pretty blatant about not giving a fuck (also I don't know that they've received undo media coverage, this thread is the first I'm even hearing about it), but with the protests, the police violence/shootings and the protests themselves are the story. They're actually one of the only things to really break through the constant corona-centric news cycle since this whole thing started, and from a media perspective covering the protests themselves makes more sense than just looking at how it might affect corona.

Also I seem to remember a decent number of protestors were wearing masks? I think some of them were doing it pretty shittily though, like off the nose, so it probably didn't matter that much anyway.

[The Walrus]

Sturgis actually gets coverage every year, it's a very big thing

[Shadow Ninja 2.0]

OK, then it may just be me being a complete dingus, which we should never rule out entirely.

[cramx3]

Sturgis may not make national headline news every year (although it is a very large event) but this year it was definitely all over the media for a bit, for things like this:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/smash-mouth-singer-mocks-coronavirus-pandemic-packed-sturgis-motorcycle-rally-n1236409

And this is why I have a hard time comparing Sturgis to protests.  Sturgis was actively against doing the right things to stop/slow the spread. Protesters may not all have worn masks, but many did and I don't recall the protests to be about being anti-mask or anything of that nature.

[Adami]

Sturgis was a huge party essentially, lots of eating and drinking.  Protests are more of a gathering.  So while both are large groups of people, one isn't really socializing for significant period of time without masks. (can't drink a beer with a mask on)

Or eat ass.  I mean, c'mon.

Amateur.

[Ben_Jamin]

Do we know if these protestors get tested, voluntarily? Did the Sturgis people get tested and found out they got it?


There's Twitter video of a BLM protestor drinking a man's glass, while they were peacefully dining.

[jingle.boy]

  If someone has some stats to show that protests have drove up the number of cases, that could change my opinion but I haven't seen any of that data.

That was kind of the point I was trying to make.....but poorly. I don't think there is a massive effort going on to determine how much Covid is being spread due to these protests. The mass protests and subsequent days/weeks of rioting and unrest seem to be immune to the criticisms that many other entities/individuals etc etc face when it comes to recognizing and implementing the safety features that are recommended for Covid. Sturgis was certainly easy to single out due to the attitude of the participants but the protest movement in general gets a free pass and it's a pretty glaring example of the hypocrisy of the media.

Geez Gary, I hate feeling like I'm jumping on your points, but .... maybe there have been studies, but they (the protests) aren't really making a huge impact on COVID cases.  I mean, a quick Google search produced these from back in June - https://www.newsweek.com/protests-black-lives-matter-covid19-coronavirus-1512501, and https://www.nber.org/papers/w27408.

Furthermore, we find no evidence that urban protests reignited COVID-19 case or death growth after more than five weeks following the onset of protests.  We conclude that predictions of population-level spikes in COVID-19 cases from Black Lives Matter protests were too narrowly conceived because of failure to account for non-participants’ behavioral responses to large gatherings

There's actually quite a bevy of articles on the matter... Time, NYPost, Forbes.  I suspect the lack of media coverage is because there's nothing to cover or reveal.

[lordxizor]

Guys, Sturgis still going forward as normal was basically a protest event. They were protesting what they saw as an overreach of government shutting down businesses, events, and forcing the wearing if masks. It was basically a protest in the form of a big party. I really don't see how it was much different than the other protests going on. Just because BLM's cause might be more important to you doesn't make one protest any more or less valid than the other.

[The Walrus]

Guys, Sturgis still going forward as normal was basically a protest event. They were protesting what they saw as an overreach of government shutting down businesses, events, and forcing the wearing if masks. It was basically a protest in the form of a big party. I really don't see how it was much different than the other protests going on. Just because BLM's cause might be more important to you doesn't make one protest any more or less valid than the other.

Actually, I would argue that the BLM/anti-brutality protests are objectively more important than those reasons you listed for the Sturgis rally. 100%. Because the restrictions were implemented as a means of helping our hospital system, which as we saw was overrun in the spring. These people are saying, 'fuck you, whateva, I do what I want!' which is their only point, they're upset about wearing a mask when they go buy their food at f'ing Wal-Mart which is basically the symbol of everything bad about American capitalism but they have no problem with the way that business operates and treats its employees or the businesses around wherever Wal-Marts pop up oh lord here comes the P/R talk 

[lordxizor]

Haha... Yeah, I'm not saying I agree with them, but there is a significant portion of america that would say that standing up against the government overstepping their bounds is much more important than protesting a handful of police shootings.

[Chino]

Haha... Yeah, I'm not saying I agree with them, but there is a significant portion of america that would say that standing up against the government overstepping their bounds is much more important than protesting a handful of police shootings.

These are the same thing.

And not for nothing, the BLM movement is about the overall treatment of blacks by law enforcement for the entirety of this nation's existence, not just the recent "handful of police shootings".

[The Walrus]

Haha... Yeah, I'm not saying I agree with them, but there is a significant portion of america that would say that standing up against the government overstepping their bounds is much more important than protesting a handful of police shootings.

These are the same thing.

And not for nothing, the BLM movement is about the overall treatment of blacks by law enforcement for the entirety of this nation's existence, not just the recent "handful of police shootings".

I agree with this.

[lordxizor]

Haha... Yeah, I'm not saying I agree with them, but there is a significant portion of america that would say that standing up against the government overstepping their bounds is much more important than protesting a handful of police shootings.

These are the same thing.

And not for nothing, the BLM movement is about the overall treatment of blacks by law enforcement for the entirety of this nation's existence, not just the recent "handful of police shootings".

I agree with this.

I do too really. I wasn't meaning to belittle the BLM cause, just worded it poorly.

[Ben_Jamin]

https://www.insider.com/sturgis-rally-19-percent-new-covid-19-cases-research-2020-9

"The research, from the Center for Health Economics & Policy Studies at San Diego State University, has not yet undergone peer review."

[jingle.boy]

Haha... Yeah, I'm not saying I agree with them, but there is a significant portion of america that would say that standing up against the government overstepping their bounds is much more important than protesting a handful of police shootings.

I'm unclear how ensuring public health (when citizens won't take measures themselves) is out of bounds for government?  There are laws for food preparation, seatbelts, smoking restrictions, drug use, warning labels.  I don't see anyone in the food supply chain  losing their shit for having to wear a hair nets.

[Ben_Jamin]

Haha... Yeah, I'm not saying I agree with them, but there is a significant portion of america that would say that standing up against the government overstepping their bounds is much more important than protesting a handful of police shootings.

I'm unclear how ensuring public health (when citizens won't take measures themselves) is out of bounds for government?  There are laws for food preparation, seatbelts, smoking restrictions, drug use, warning labels.  I don't see anyone in the food supply chain  losing their shit for having to wear a hair nets.

Just as you have People not wanting to take anymore shit form the police (Police Brutality), you have People not wanting to take anymore shit from the Government (Laws).

But Sturgis only happened due to the town and state knowing Those people would've came either way. So instead of dealing with them by turning them away, the state caved and let them come in, and did everything to ensure a safe as possible event.

[jingle.boy]

Haha... Yeah, I'm not saying I agree with them, but there is a significant portion of america that would say that standing up against the government overstepping their bounds is much more important than protesting a handful of police shootings.

I'm unclear how ensuring public health (when citizens won't take measures themselves) is out of bounds for government?  There are laws for food preparation, seatbelts, smoking restrictions, drug use, warning labels.  I don't see anyone in the food supply chain  losing their shit for having to wear a hair nets.

Just as you have People not wanting to take anymore shit form the police (Police Brutality), you have People not wanting to take anymore shit from the Government (Laws).

Are you really trying to compare the actions of people not wanting to see people of colour murdered against the actions of people who don't want to minimize the spread of their own germs in the middle of a global pandemic?

[Stadler]

Guys, Sturgis still going forward as normal was basically a protest event. They were protesting what they saw as an overreach of government shutting down businesses, events, and forcing the wearing if masks. It was basically a protest in the form of a big party. I really don't see how it was much different than the other protests going on. Just because BLM's cause might be more important to you doesn't make one protest any more or less valid than the other.

Actually, I would argue that the BLM/anti-brutality protests are objectively more important than those reasons you listed for the Sturgis rally. 100%. Because the restrictions were implemented as a means of helping our hospital system, which as we saw was overrun in the spring. These people are saying, 'fuck you, whateva, I do what I want!' which is their only point, they're upset about wearing a mask when they go buy their food at f'ing Wal-Mart which is basically the symbol of everything bad about American capitalism but they have no problem with the way that business operates and treats its employees or the businesses around wherever Wal-Marts pop up oh lord here comes the P/R talk 

Regardless, it's still a prioritization of competing values/benefits. And any time you do that, it's by it's nature a subjective thing.   It gets mocked a lot, but there's some merit - especially in this burgeoning age of "Trump as fascist" - in the idea of reminding that not everyone believes that government is here to save us from ourselves.   

[Stadler]

Haha... Yeah, I'm not saying I agree with them, but there is a significant portion of america that would say that standing up against the government overstepping their bounds is much more important than protesting a handful of police shootings.

I'm unclear how ensuring public health (when citizens won't take measures themselves) is out of bounds for government?  There are laws for food preparation, seatbelts, smoking restrictions, drug use, warning labels.  I don't see anyone in the food supply chain  losing their shit for having to wear a hair nets.

Those are of varying degree of "ensuring public health".    But more specifically, there are two components to that:  what if you don't believe it's government's job to "ensure public health", and what if you do and yet find deep hypocrisy in that mission (as I do)?    I can wrap my hands around "ensuring public health", but don't get me started on how badly I believe government ACTUALLY does it.    So much of what passes for "ensuring public health" is a sop to one industry or activist group or another.    No serious efforts to "ensure public health" can be claimed as long as our obesity rate is approaching 50%, as long as our mental health is deteriorating as fast as Paul Stanley's voice, as long as we use/abuse both prescription and illegal drugs at a rate that makes other countries look like rank amateurs, as long as "healthcare reform" is simply "penalize those that don't pony up"...   


(I put "ensuring public health" in quotes because I was going to make another point and I forgot what it was, so...)

[Stadler]

Haha... Yeah, I'm not saying I agree with them, but there is a significant portion of america that would say that standing up against the government overstepping their bounds is much more important than protesting a handful of police shootings.

I'm unclear how ensuring public health (when citizens won't take measures themselves) is out of bounds for government?  There are laws for food preparation, seatbelts, smoking restrictions, drug use, warning labels.  I don't see anyone in the food supply chain  losing their shit for having to wear a hair nets.

Just as you have People not wanting to take anymore shit form the police (Police Brutality), you have People not wanting to take anymore shit from the Government (Laws).

Are you really trying to compare the actions of people not wanting to see people of colour murdered against the actions of people who don't want to minimize the spread of their own germs in the middle of a global pandemic?

That's not really our call to make.  He can and should prioritize those as he sees fit.  I know my prioritization doesn't exactly jibe with that of the narrative.   I certainly think that we have to restructure the law enforcement system in such a way that we can minimize the number of those that die at the hands of a police officer (it will never be zero, because not all the deaths are unreasonable), and we should be working to eliminate any racial disparity from that equation.  But having said that, I don't believe in "by any means necessary", and I do think that some of the BLM protests are out of proportion to the root problem.   

[hunnus2000]

I know this is a Kerona thread but I have to say one one thing about the BLM movement:

It's not just about racial injustice. It's not just about police brutality. It's not just about statistics about who gets killed by whom and how. It's mostly about police killing and murdering with impunity.

How many times have we seen the blue protect their own and claim innocence, even when we see the video for ourselves?
They get off scott free. That's the issue and the only thing you need to ask yourselves is if this happened to you, would you just stand there and take it? 

[jingle.boy]

Haha... Yeah, I'm not saying I agree with them, but there is a significant portion of america that would say that standing up against the government overstepping their bounds is much more important than protesting a handful of police shootings.

I'm unclear how ensuring public health (when citizens won't take measures themselves) is out of bounds for government?  There are laws for food preparation, seatbelts, smoking restrictions, drug use, warning labels.  I don't see anyone in the food supply chain  losing their shit for having to wear a hair nets.

Those are of varying degree of "ensuring public health".    But more specifically, there are two components to that:  what if you don't believe it's government's job to "ensure public health", and what if you do and yet find deep hypocrisy in that mission (as I do)?    I can wrap my hands around "ensuring public health", but don't get me started on how badly I believe government ACTUALLY does it.    So much of what passes for "ensuring public health" is a sop to one industry or activist group or another.    No serious efforts to "ensure public health" can be claimed as long as our obesity rate is approaching 50%, as long as our mental health is deteriorating as fast as Paul Stanley's voice, as long as we use/abuse both prescription and illegal drugs at a rate that makes other countries look like rank amateurs, as long as "healthcare reform" is simply "penalize those that don't pony up"...   

All valid points, and I don't disagree with you at all.  The flaw however is that, while you are right on every point above, all of those issues only affect the health of the individual.  Mental illness and drug abuse can have indirect impacts on society, but those matters don't directly affect the health of other people.  To that end, my example of seatbelts isn't the greatest.  But the government 'over-reach' about masks is within their scope the same way they should ensure restaurants refrigerate their food and have running water to clean dishes.  Aspects that effect others' health are within the gub'ts responsibility, no?

[ErHaO]

For pretty much all charity events I have attended in my life, I sincerely doubt the majority of people attending are there for anything else than the fun party. Point being, I am convinced the same applies for Sturgis. If really people want to protest the government, they would be doing that instead of partying like usual. Because let's be honest, events like that are fun to be, unlike riots/protests (for most sensible people anyways, I know there are always those that enjoy the chaos). So I really disagree that the protests are comparable to an annual rally/festival.

[Ben_Jamin]

For pretty much all charity events I have attended in my life, I sincerely doubt the majority of people attending are there for anything else than the fun party. Point being, I am convinced the same applies for Sturgis. If really people want to protest the government, they would be doing that instead of partying like usual. Because let's be honest, events like that are fun to be, unlike riots/protests (for most sensible people anyways, I know there are always those that enjoy the chaos). So I really disagree that the protests are comparable to an annual rally/festival.

Disobeying orders is a form of protest.

[Adami]

For pretty much all charity events I have attended in my life, I sincerely doubt the majority of people attending are there for anything else than the fun party. Point being, I am convinced the same applies for Sturgis. If really people want to protest the government, they would be doing that instead of partying like usual. Because let's be honest, events like that are fun to be, unlike riots/protests (for most sensible people anyways, I know there are always those that enjoy the chaos). So I really disagree that the protests are comparable to an annual rally/festival.

Disobeying orders is a form of protest.

Not always.