A month ago I tweeted this thread, to *enormous* backlash. Many folks yelled that I had sold out my credibility. An expert on experts called me out for "the very essence of politicizing expertise."
But here the thing. I and others making this point...weren't wrong.
But here the thing. I and others making this point...weren't wrong.
The basic argument was two-fold:
- That if done properly and carefully, outdoor protesting was not a high-risk activity
- That the importance of the #BLM movement justified accepting that degree of risk
- That if done properly and carefully, outdoor protesting was not a high-risk activity
- That the importance of the #BLM movement justified accepting that degree of risk
But a vocal faction on twitter insisted we were being disingenuous. That we were downplaying the risk because of our political sympathies.
That if we didn't call out the protests just as we called out reckless reopening policies, we had no credibility.
That if we didn't call out the protests just as we called out reckless reopening policies, we had no credibility.
So with the benefit of a month's hindsight, let's test that accusation.
Did protesters maintain responsible mitigation behaviors? Overall, they largely did. Most photos of BLM protesters showed 95%+ masking. Many of the marches had good spacing (not all).
And this is borne out by targeted testing of protesters, which in MN showed they tested + at lower rates than the general population. Other cities similar.
wired.com/story/what-min…
wired.com/story/what-min…
So are transmission risks of protests lower than risks of over-eager reopening, as I argued? Sure looks that way. The places with the larges protests are NOT the places where transmission is currently exploding.
So transmission data are consistent with the notion that reopening too fast is a much higher risk than outdoor protests.
In other words there is (despite the chorus of twitter scolds) a meaningful difference in the risk of protesting outdoors in a mask vs drinking in a bar.
In other words there is (despite the chorus of twitter scolds) a meaningful difference in the risk of protesting outdoors in a mask vs drinking in a bar.
As for whether the protests themselves merit the accepting that degree of risk - I continue to think so. There's no question there has been a major impact on public opinion. cbsnews.com/news/black-liv…
So - back to this question of whether I and others skewed our analysis to align with our political sympathies.
The data show otherwise.
But that didn't deter people from insisting on interpreting our analysis mainly in partisan rather than public health terms.
The data show otherwise.
But that didn't deter people from insisting on interpreting our analysis mainly in partisan rather than public health terms.
There's a larger lesson here about what's undermining the US COVID response right now. There is a contingent of the public that insists on viewing all public health guidance in politically partisan terms. Their trust in experts is undermined for many reasons, starting with POTUS.
But their dismissal of experts is helped along by pundits who - even if their political sympathies differ - spout contrarian hot takes that caricature public health advice rather than attempt to understand it.
Would love to see some of those pundits reflect on why they got this so wrong. And perhaps be a little more cautious about castigating public health expertise in the future.
