[teejers1]

Yeah I'm sure it will only be covered in noted conservative publications like the SF Chronicle https://www.sfchronicle.com/health/artic...711791.php

I also agree that we should not have a "traditional" inauguration. Just having a swearing in with minimal attendees will also gloss over the fact Trump undoubtedly will not attend.

I also believe that the celebrations in response to Biden's election are very ill advised. Even if they are "safer than ...<name your activity>", they are not safer than staying home. It seems that  we have a country that believes that if you do the "right thing" 95% of the time, that is enough and you are entitled to do whatever you want the remaining 5% of the time. It doesn't work like that.

Don't worry, I'm sure the MSM will be all over it to figure out exactly how many additional infections have been caused by these celebrations, like we saw with certain other unwise gatherings . . . oh wait . . . nevermind.

Yeah, LMK when there is reporting on specific number of cases supposedly tied to a risky behavior.  Look, if you think there is even-keel reporting on what kinds of activities are and are not safe - including resources expended to determine if a particular activity constitutes a "super spreader" event - then we'll just have to disagree.  But it was good to see the SF Chron state the obvious.  That's better than pretending certain activities aren't/weren't increasing risk.

[teejers1]

Yeah I'm sure it will only be covered in noted conservative publications like the SF Chronicle https://www.sfchronicle.com/health/artic...711791.php

I also agree that we should not have a "traditional" inauguration. Just having a swearing in with minimal attendees will also gloss over the fact Trump undoubtedly will not attend.

I also believe that the celebrations in response to Biden's election are very ill advised. Even if they are "safer than ...<name your activity>", they are not safer than staying home. It seems that  we have a country that believes that if you do the "right thing" 95% of the time, that is enough and you are entitled to do whatever you want the remaining 5% of the time. It doesn't work like that.

Don't worry, I'm sure the MSM will be all over it to figure out exactly how many additional infections have been caused by these celebrations, like we saw with certain other unwise gatherings . . . oh wait . . . nevermind.

Yeah, LMK when there is reporting on specific number of cases supposedly tied to a risky behavior.  Look, if you think there is even-keel reporting on what kinds of activities are and are not safe - including resources expended to determine if a particular activity constitutes a "super spreader" event - then we'll just have to disagree.  But it was good to see the SF Chron state the obvious.  That's better than pretending certain activities aren't/weren't increasing risk.