Are the signers unaware of their double standard? Their statement above shows that they are quite aware. The standard is not health, which is supposed to be their area of expertise. No. They distinguish between the April 30 anti-lockdown protest of people in Michigan and the late May protests of people about the treatment of black people based on three things: (1) the race of the anti-lockdown protesters, (2) the fact that some of the anti-lockdown protesters in Michigan were carrying guns, and (3) the issue being protested. My own view, by the way, is that both kinds of protests are justified and important.
For about 6 weeks before the Michigan protest, we were told that we should stay home because it was so crucial for defeating the coronavirus. That actually made some sense. So when the Michigan protesters came along, most of the public health community opposed their being near each other and unmasked because that could spread the virus. That made some sense too, which is why, for the May 1 anti-lockdown protest in Monterey that Lawrence Samuels and I organized, we encouraged people to wear masks and/or socially distance. (Sadly, only about half of the protesters did wear masks, although the social distancing was relatively successful.) To their credit, in the rest of the open letter, the health professionals advocate that protesters do so safely, either wearing masks or keeping their distance. But then why didn’t they say the same about the anti-lockdown protests? Why didn’t they just encourage them to protest safely? The answer is obvious. The health professionals sympathized with one cause and not with the other. Which means it’s not about the health; it’s about the cause.
This is from David R. Henderson, “Health Professionals Show What Matters. Hint: It’s Not Health,” antiwar.com, June 11, 2020.
Read the whole thing, which is not long.
READER COMMENTS
Mike Hammock
Jun 11 2020 at 2:47pm
This Atlantic article tries to article that public health officials are not being hypocritical because systemic racism is a more serious public health issue. I think its case is weakened significantly by the lack of any numbers with which to compare the two threats.
David Henderson
Jun 11 2020 at 3:15pm
Thanks. I think you meant “argue.”
And I think you’re right; they might have a case, but they don’t make it. They want us to take it on faith, like so much else that so many of them have said. Also, even if they established that systematic racism is a serious public health issue, which it could be, they would have to argue that it’s more serious than the increased suicides and other downsides of people being separated from each other. Even that might be true, but if so, it’s also likely to be true 3 or 6 months from now when lockdowns are presumably over and protesting is safer.
Mike Hammock
Jun 11 2020 at 5:15pm
Yes, “argue”, not “article”. Sorry about that.
Dylan
Jun 11 2020 at 4:30pm
I’m not one to normally use the hypocrisy bludgeon, I feel everyone is a bit hypocritical about somethings some of the time, and that’s fine…a foolish consistency and all that. But yikes, the events of the last couple of years, and particularly the last couple of months are really testing my resolve. I came across that Atlantic piece this morning, and had trouble finishing it.
I don’t know what is so hard with saying. “Yes, the protests are dangerous when it comes to the corona virus. Many people are likely to get infected, and transmit to people who were not at the protests, and that’s going to lead to some deaths that wouldn’t otherwise have occurred. However, we think the moral cause of the protests is so great, that we support them anyway. if you are going to go you can take these steps to try and reduce your exposure, and you should keep away from vulnerable people for at least a week after?”
Own the fact that one type of protest is considered more important to you. That’s fine! But don’t try to couch it in public health terms with no data to back it up.
Brian
Jun 12 2020 at 5:14pm
“I don’t know what is so hard with saying. “Yes, the protests are dangerous when it comes to the corona virus.”
Dylan,
It would be even better if they acknowledged that protests of any kind pose very little threat with regard to spreading the pandemic. As Mr. Bitcoin points out, transmission occurs overwhelmingly indoors. Especially if there’s at least a slight breeze, the saliva particles get dispersed very quickly and are not likely to be breathed in with sufficient numbers to get infected. It’s still a good idea to wear masks when people are shouting or chanting, as they often do at protests, but there’s no serious threat to public health with any of this. Note that there’s no evidence that even the spring break festivities in March, which were completely mask-free, caused any outbreak.
Mark Z
Jun 11 2020 at 5:13pm
It’s even weaker still considering that a disproportionate number of black people die from the virus – in fact for the foreseeable future it is a far greater threat to them than police homicides. The protests could easily be delayed, and it’s pretty certain given the numbers that in the next year there’ll be another killing or beating by a police officer that would be an adequate catalyst, so I don’t think the ‘it’s now or never’ argument works. Roughly 250 black people are killed per year by police, and at most ~120 or 130 could be attributable to racism (assuming, dubiously, the entire disparity is due to racism). I’d guess that the expected number of black people’s deaths averted isn’t even clearly in the double digits, while the number of deaths of black people caused by the protests would likely exceed that number if more than a couple thousand infectious ultimately result from the protests nationwide. In short it isn’t clear that it’s a net gain for black lives (the math is even less optimistic when one accounts for the dozen or so mostly black people killed in the course of the demonstrations and accompanied looting and such).
Another thing that I find offiputting is that these public health experts seem to almost completely discount the cost of lockdowns and public health measures. I made the mistake of following links to a few of their twitter pages, and the attitude of the typical public health expert on this list seems to be that the contrast is ‘saving black lives vs. getting a haircut.’ The dramatic rise in suicide rates many areas have seen due to people with mental health issues have to isolate themselves for months on end, the millions of people whose livelihoods were either ruined or thrown into disarray, the probably hundreds of thousands of sick or old people who died alone away from their loved ones. Nope, it was just haircuts. And then breathlessly claiming anti-lockdown protests were ‘rooted in white nationalism?’ How did such a facially ridiculous sentence make it into the letter? The discipline of public health is really plummeting toward the bottom of the hierarchy of academic disciplines in my mind these days.
David Henderson
Jun 11 2020 at 6:09pm
Good points. As I noted to someone on FB a day or two ago who argued that the protests about the cops were about saving lives while the protests about lockdowns were about getting a haircut, “I can easily do without a haircut; my concern is for the haircutters.” This guy would not have passed an ideological Turing test.
David Henderson
Jun 11 2020 at 3:18pm
For more evidence on suicides etc., see this:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/05/08/coronavirus-pandemic-boosts-suicide-alcohol-drug-death-predictions/3081706001/
David Henderson
Jun 11 2020 at 3:20pm
And a commentary I saw on Facebook:
My personal opinion is that the mental health and substance abuse side effects of this so called ‘pandemic’ is far more dangerous and life altering than the virus itself. My child is currently afraid of everything… the air, people, I have days that it is a fight to even go outside and ride our bikes. He doesn’t want me leaving because he doesn’t want me to die. We don’t watch the news anymore, I don’t talk about ‘the virus’, and no we don’t wear masks because he’s neurotic enough at the moment and I refuse to make it worse. Argue with me all you want about it but until you are actually considering counseling for your six year old, then you have no idea. People are miserable right now this virus is destroying people who don’t even get it.
Joy Schwabach
Jun 11 2020 at 3:32pm
Wow, it must be so different where you are than it is here in the Midwest, where people seem so relaxed! I’ve babysat three kids -to give their parents a break and for the fun of it– three times since March. None of the children are in the least bit nervous. For them, it’s sort of an adventure where they’re learning something new about the world. I’m so sorry to hear it isn’t that way in N. California. While acknowledging the tragedies, the introverts among us are welcoming the isolation as a chance to get things done. See https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2020/06/04/for-alexander-pushkin-lockdown-was-liberating
One of my favorite grad students (in materials science) wrote this: “The Dean of our school reminded us that Isaac Newton invented calculus in the 17th century when he couldn’t attend school because of a Great Plague: https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/03/12/during-pandemic-isaac-newton-had-work-home-too-he-used-time-wisely/
David Henderson
Jun 11 2020 at 6:11pm
I don’t know where this person lives. I have no reason to think that he’s in northern California. As you probably know, when you have 1,800 “friends” on FB, the odds that more than 20% of them are in your own state (even a state as populous as California) are very low.
But I’m very happy to see that things are working out for you in the midwest. I want to see more of that everywhere.
mister bitcoin
Jun 11 2020 at 5:12pm
I don’t think one needs to wear a mask outside.
97% of positive cases have been from indoor transmission.
Homeless people have mostly tested negative, the positive ones almost all have been asymptomatic.
I also read yesterday that asymptomatic cases are not contagious, i.e. not a spreader
Phil H
Jun 11 2020 at 7:41pm
There’s a bit of a journalistic trope at work here. Person X said this, Person Y (who in my mind is the same as Person X) said that, therefore, hypocrisy! The article doesn’t make any attempt to show that the signatories of the letter are or should be the same people who made statements in support of the lockdown. Perhaps the fact that they label themselves “health professionals” is enough.
So, yes, these two messages from “health people” are somewhat contradictory. But what conclusion are we supposed to draw from that?
David Henderson
Jun 11 2020 at 10:08pm
Read the paragraph I quoted in the article.
Phil H
Jun 12 2020 at 12:17am
I did. Then I stated my reservations about it. Assuming that I haven’t read it is pretty rude.
RPLong
Jun 12 2020 at 7:53am
Phil, the open letter states:
So, the signatories of the same letter support the condemnations mentioned in the first half of this quote, and in the latter half, they oppose similar condemnations against a different set of protestors. The remaining part of this paragraph, which I didn’t quote, makes clear that their reasoning is political.
The ones who formally issued the initial condemnations may or may not have been some of the signatories of the open letter quoted here, but by clearly articulating their reasons why the response to these two protests should be different, they are endorsing the view David criticizes here. The one he’s saying is hypocritical (and I agree).
Do you still think we’re talking about two different groups of public health officials, and if so, why do you think so?
Mark Z
Jun 12 2020 at 2:10am
A couple exerpts from the letter:
“On April 30, heavily armed and predominantly white protesters entered the State Capitol building in Lansing, Michigan, protesting stay-home orders and calls for widespread public masking to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Infectious disease physicians and public health officials publicly condemned these actions and privately mourned the widening rift between leaders in science and a subset of the communities that they serve.”
…
“This should not be confused with a permissive stance on all gatherings, particularly protests against stay-home orders. Those actions not only oppose public health interventions, but are also rooted in white nationalism and run contrary to respect for Black lives.”
I’d say these statements strongly imply to me that they support stay-at-home orders. So it’s not a matter of ‘we’re assuming it’s the same people who said X.’ They’re saying X in the same letter in which they’re saying Y.
Thomas Hutcheson
Jun 13 2020 at 8:28am
There has been a lot of confusion in the health messaging between recommendation, what to do to protect oneself, and exhortation, what to do to protect others (which includes avoiding infection that one may transmit to others). My impression is that people are rather too fearful for their own safety and not concerned enough about the safety of others.
There should be no moral opprobrium of failing to protect oneself, although publicly calling it out as foolish is perfectly acceptable. Judging actions that endanger others is appropriate, but the external costs and external benefits of the actions should enter the judgement. By this principle, I may judge that the benefits to others of one protest justify endangering others and that another does not. Other people may differ with that judgement.
Idriss Z
Jun 13 2020 at 4:23pm
Am I the only one who feels it’s been fairly well established by libraries of information that underpinningsof systemic racism are indeed the biggest threat to public health. As we’ve seen even people who are completely equanimous in their views can contribute to actions that are racially harmful. Moreover, racism continues to be deleterious to public health with no attendant benefit. As long as it continues every public health threat will be exacerbated even without any individual racism. Does this really need to be restated every single time?
Comparing the reopenners to the civil rights protests ,makes it clear why it is not at all hypocritical: one community is protesting being unhealthily restricted for a couple weeks, one community is protesting being unhealthily resticricted for a couple of centuries. Anyone who wants to treat to the two activities the same ought to be more responsible with their reading and their speaking. The difference in the injustices being protested is mountains and molehills. Full stop.
Comments are closed.