[lex24]

Its counterintuitive to believe that large gathering of people in close proximity for long periods of time, many who were shouting, is not a contributing factor.  And frankly, any study on this is, imo, is likely to be skewed by politics.  Either way.

Their point was that the “large gathering of people in close proximity for long periods of time” kept an even larger group of people from going outside, and in so doing the net effect was less viral transmission.  Again, I’m not sure I buy it, but the argument is not that that the protests didn’t facilitate transmission among people who were protesting, but rather that this effect was outweighed by the effect on people who didn’t participate in the protests and stayed home as a result.  Based on surveys, fewer than 1% of people participated in protests, and that is much less than the number of people who would have been venturing out electively for other activities.

BC

I find the argument absurd, quite frankly.  But I’m not surprised.  There is a “need” to find little or no “culpability” among the protestors. It is the politically correct thing to do. 

 One of my favorite County Orders was Conta Costa.  I forget the exact date, perhaps June 5.   The Health Czar came out in the Order and said it was ok to have outdoor protests up to 100 people.  (As if the protestors needed the Czar’s blessing.)  And what if you were no 101.) At the same time, however, Contra Costa was banning outdoor religious gatherings - of any number. I remember thinking if I was leading a religious group I’d announce my outdoor upcoming protest service - wear a mask. Services were allowed outdoors I believe 2 weeks later.

[lex24]

Its counterintuitive to believe that large gathering of people in close proximity for long periods of time, many who were shouting, is not a contributing factor.  And frankly, any study on this is, imo, is likely to be skewed by politics.  Either way.

Their point was that the “large gathering of people in close proximity for long periods of time” kept an even larger group of people from going outside, and in so doing the net effect was less viral transmission.  Again, I’m not sure I buy it, but the argument is not that that the protests didn’t facilitate transmission among people who were protesting, but rather that this effect was outweighed by the effect on people who didn’t participate in the protests and stayed home as a result.  Based on surveys, fewer than 1% of people participated in protests, and that is much less than the number of people who would have been venturing out electively for other activities.

BC

I find the argument absurd, quite frankly.  But I’m not surprised.  There is a “need” to find little or no “culpability” among the protestors. It is the politically correct thing to do. 

 One of my favorite County Orders was Conta Costa.  I forget the exact date, perhaps June 5.   The Health Czar came out in the Order and said it was ok to have outdoor protests up to 100 people.  (As if the protestors needed the Czar’s blessing.)  And what if you were no 101.) At the same time, however, Contra Costa was banning outdoor religious gatherings - of any number. I remember thinking if I was leading a religious group I’d announce my outdoor upcoming protest service - wear a mask. Services were allowed outdoors I believe 2 weeks later.