Covid Restrictions Inconsistently Applied

If the virus were truly the threat it is claimed to be, government officials would equally condemn all protests that violate public health recommendations.

Following up on the COVID-19 article I posted the other day, I wanted to share a quick observation concerning the current lockdowns and social distancing policies in many states. I support the right of all people to protest, as I believe most everyone else does as well. But it is interesting to me that governors and health officials who have consistently condemned gatherings of large groups of people for the past several months (including gatherings of the local church, funerals, weddings, and protests for other reasons) have not condemned the current protests that are taking place in cities across the nation (“tens of thousands” in Houston, as one example). To the contrary, many governors and public health officials have actually spoken out in favor of the protests (see this article with pictures of Governor Whitmer of Michigan—clearly not 6 feet apart). I’ll say again that I support the right of all people to protest, and if governors or health officials desire to join these protests, I believe they have the right to do so. But if the virus were truly the threat that it has been claimed to be, it would seem that these officials would also have to condemn these protests in order to be consistent with the public health recommendations and executive orders they have issued (not to mention their public denouncements of those who would question these orders).

UPDATE: Dialogue Related to this Post

Commenter:

First protests were to open businesses. Those first businesses that would have opened would subject vulnerable people to potentially getting the virus by forcing them to lose unemployment income and choose between staying home and safe with nothing coming in and then getting evicted, etc., or going to work to have income to make ends meet and being exposed unwillingly. 

The black lives matter protests are entirely voluntary and a few weeks later when some curves are at least a little flatter. 

Also you posted an opinion piece a couple of weeks ago stating the lockdowns were bad. Posting this feels arbitrarily argumentative.

Response:

Thanks so much for your thoughts. I understand what you are saying about receiving unemployment benefits, and that’s a larger issue beyond the scope of this post (I’d be happy to engage on that elsewhere if you would like). The point of my post was to simply show the inconsistent application of the lockdowns and social distancing orders. All past protests (not just over lost jobs, the economy, etc. but other protests as well) were denounced by the same people who are now advocating for these protests and even marching with protestors (and not practicing the social distancing they alleged was so very important). 

To your point about the Black Lives Matters protests being voluntary, all of the other protests were also entirely voluntarily. As to them being a few weeks later, right up until the moment these protests started many governors and officials argued that social distancing, etc. needed to be maintained to prevent a “second wave.” 

And as to the article I published, you are right that I tried to show that the lockdowns had done much more harm than good. I sincerely appreciate it if you took the time to read that article, as I know it was lengthy. My intent in posting this observation was not to arbitrarily argue; rather, my aim was to point out what seemed to be arbitrary enforcement of the lockdowns and social distancing policies.

I have no doubt that those protesting now as well as those who protested over the past two months are all very passionate about their reasons for protesting and have what they view as good reasons for protesting. My point is simply that it is unfair for the government (and the media and public health officials) to sanction certain (and by all accounts much larger) protests while at the same time denouncing other protests. If the virus poses a more significant threat than the flu (if you read my article I discussed these comparisons at length), then there should be a consistent message from governors and public health officials. Otherwise, the government could rightly be accused of viewpoint discrimination for sanctioning certain views and protests while decrying (or even prohibiting) other protests.

Commenter:

Government is supposed to work towards the best solution for the most citizens. Protesting lockdown orders given at the recommendation of epidemiologists/health experts and economic experts does not work towards the best for the most people. Protesting racial inequality, unfair treatment under the law, police brutality with relative impunity, and little to no consequences when crimes are committed by police does work towards the best for the most people. In addition, more testing and tracing has come out and been made more available which epidemiologists have said is needed to be able to open up a little more. 

No matter what, maybe we listen to the CDC/WHO for how we treat this virus. 

Also, these current protests would not have lasted near as long had police performed their duties to the standards they should.

Basically giving in to the lockdown protests would involve the government forcing people out of their homes and into public spaces to be exposed. These protests are people voluntarily going into public spaces with their own knowledge of the current situation and making a conscious choice to voice an opinion about a situation that matters to them, namely a situation about government abuses.

Response:

I don't believe that would force people out of their homes anymore than the "essential" employees were forced out of their homes. My understanding is that much of the argument centered on which businesses were decreed essential and which ones were not, and even then many of the policies were unequally applied (e.g., Lowes and Home Depot remained open, but many similar small businesses were forced to close). And to your point about the current protests being voluntary, the other protestors voluntarily went as well into public spaces.

And as to listening to the CDC/WHO, there are legitimate reasons to question the wisdom of listening to them, not the least of which is the fact that they continue to disagree on recommendations for masks and adequate social distancing (and the flip flopping in recent months as well).

Commenter:

Yes, we should definitely question epidemiologists, the WHO, and the CDC as they work on a brand new viral epidemic to the human race. Also, we should definitely question stylists when they formulate color for our hair. Do they really know what they’re doing? 

In response to the first protests over lockdown, those protests were about restaurants movie theaters and salons. All of those puts people in close proximity for long periods of time while medical personnel and epidemiologists are working on what’s the best thing to do with this brand new to the human race virus. Those businesses were never in question as to their non-essential status by health experts, just by those who just didn’t like the lockdown orders in general.

Response:

Perhaps health experts never questioned whether the business were non-essential, but for the many who lost jobs, businesses, livelihoods, and potentially homes in the coming weeks and months, those businesses were absolutely essential. It’s easy for those with secure jobs (e.g., government officials) to declare certain businesses to be non-essential, as their own livelihoods are not at risk. 

And I hear you on wanting to give deference to epidemiologists and the CDC/WHO. The hope would be that the experts at these organizations would be able to offer the best advice possible (I certainly do not doubt the intentions of many people who work for these organizations). But the opinions of other epidemiologists, scientists, and medical professionals conflict with the recommendations from the CDC and WHO (and again the CDC and WHO disagree on many things). My hope in researching for the article I wrote was to try to look at all the evidence that was out there in the hope of seeing where the data and science point.