CR: COVID-19 --Political Talk

[HenryJames 66135]

13 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Welp.

Corona Tide y’all.

 

Saban roster management is savage.

[Bama Chick 28596]

And it was an “unofficial practice”.

And now hearing rumors that it is 17 players.

[Hornius Emeritus 12479]

9 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

Saban roster management is savage.

 

Man, no kidding.  He's a true competitor, seeking every advantage. That's what makes winners.

[HenryJames 66135]

 

[BrazilHorn 6624]

1 hour ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Isn’t herd immunity achieved after something like 70+% of population has antibodies? I don’t think that’s realistic even given the demonstrations

I think you're right but take the "Kevin Bacon - Six Degrees" effect here to some degree. Everyone of those people at these protests or at beaches/parks on Memorial Day are going home to a group of folks that they have potential to expose infection to and then that group to others they know etc etc

Didn't say it was going to build herd immunity on its own but prior to Memorial Day and the Protests people by and large were practicing social distancing etc. Now they've pretty much said "fuck it"

[Anastasis 23480]

1 hour ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-cases-spike-in-texas-and-arizona-1819ce9f-8565-483a-b367-b678a607154d.html

Thanks for the link. They appear to be using the percent increase in the seven day rolling average as their measure.  That does not seem appropriate to aggregate a seven day rolling average in that manner.  I didn't validate their calculation, but the raw numbers come out very different.  

Testing in Texas increased by 36% over the past week, while the number of confirmed infections rose by 51%.

I get a 34% increase in testing week over week, and 4% increase in cases week over week. 

New Tests New Cases Week 1 (17 May - 23 May) 123967 7510 Week 2 (24 May - 30May) 165811 7829 Percent Increase 1.34 1.04

Edited June 4, 2020 by Anastasis

[triplehorn 2664]

20 hours ago, Sejjr said:

This is a pretty significant scandal. Surgisphere appears to be a fucking sham company. The fact that their fake study was ever actually considered real, posted and promoted in a respected medical journal and in fact had global implications on patient care, is frankly terrifying. You can believe what you will about the efficacy of Hydroxycloroquin therapy, and it has become a political football. But a sham study being promoted as fact, by respected medical publications and as a result in the media, is fucking inexcusable. 

And Lancet's reputation just took one right on the nose.  Would be interesting to see if any of the authors of the sham study have any associations with pharma company Gilead (and its attempt to repurpose Remdesivir).  Any bets? 

It's stunning how lacking we are in initial studies to delineate potential applications of HCQ while many countries around the world have refined their approaches to such a degree that they immediately blew off the WHO's call for suspending use of HCQ based off the Lancet study.  

India's ICMR has a study suggesting prophylaxis may work best after several weeks of once weekly dosing.  Meanwhile we have a UMinny prophylaxis study with a consecutive multi-day regimen more associated with mitigating symptoms or speeding recovery once infected.  Unfortunately UMinny didn't do what we also need to assess - measure symptom progression or mitigation of early confirmed Cov19 positives with HCQ vs placebo.  And even though the findings are potentially very informative, in the UMinny study, 83% of subjects didn't even get an actual test to confirm infection with Cov19.  Meanwhile other nations using HCQ early with a consecutive multi-day regimen (in combination with other things) after exposure or initial infection appear to be demonstrating favorable recovery rates.  As far as I know, we still don't have a basic US study on early use of HCQ in mitigating symptom severity or reducing rate of progression to complicated illness and/or death.

How would you feel if it came to be known that big pharma had a direct hand in mucking up initial perception and understanding about application of a safe, cheap, generic competitor (maybe $20 per patient) in order to boost sales of their own failed ebola drug at $4400 per patient?

 

[GRHorn 105]

 

[jimmyjazz 46000]

1 hour ago, triplehorn said:

And Lancet's reputation just took one right on the nose. 

I don't disagree, but let's put the majority of the blame where it belongs:  on the company allegedly pushing sham data.  It's not outrageous to draw conclusions consistent with a data set, going on the assumption that the inputs are valid. It's certainly not outrageous for downstream clients to draw further conclusions assuming that everything upstream is kosher.  I don't know where the breakdown might have occurred, but it's not clear that this is anything more than possible dismissal of that particular test.  It seems that the conclusions were largely consistent with those taken from smaller VA studies -- if that's true, are those conclusions truly suspect?

[Anastasis 23480]

9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't disagree, but let's put the majority of the blame where it belongs:  on the company allegedly pushing sham data. 

All of the co-authors are responsible.  When you typically sign authorship agreements, you attest that you have access to and confirm the data.  I see that the contingent from Harvard, Zurich, Utah have retracted their authorship. Their careers should be over. 

[jimmyjazz 46000]

Just now, Anastasis said:

All of the co-authors are responsible.  When you typically sign authorship agreements, you attest that you have access to and confirm the data.  I see that the contingent from Harvard, Zurich, Utah have retracted their authorship. Their careers should be over. 

No disagreement there.  Surely you'd still see the malicious intent starting at the top of the chain, though, right?

The worst of it is that it throws confusion on all conclusions to date.  If ever there were a time for science to get this shit right, this would be a good example.  Doesn't look good.

[Anastasis 23480]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

No disagreement there.  Surely you'd still see the malicious intent starting at the top of the chain, though, right?

The worst of it is that it throws confusion on all conclusions to date.  If ever there were a time for science to get this shit right, this would be a good example.  Doesn't look good.

100% agree. Shit has been moving at the speed of light with covid publications compared to typical timelines that take weeks to months to clear peer and editorial reviews. Most of the garbage out right now are pre prints. But that Lancet and NEJM would fuck up this badly...man that reflects poorly on everything. The concept of peer reviewed medical publications as the gold standard has been under assault for some time, appears it may be one of the undercounted COVID casualties. 

[jimmyjazz 46000]

You implied something that I don't really have any nose for -- is it truly out of the realm of possibility for a small company to put together the tools to sniff out large trial data as they claim to have done?  It seems if that were the case, the data should have been hugely suspect from the jump, and the authors should surely be expected to know it.

[Anastasis 23480]

34 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

You implied something that I don't really have any nose for -- is it truly out of the realm of possibility for a small company to put together the tools to sniff out large trial data as they claim to have done?  It seems if that were the case, the data should have been hugely suspect from the jump, and the authors should surely be expected to know it.

Large multi source datasets consisting of administrative claims data and electronic medical records are fairly typical. This is not trial data, this is real world data used to conduct observational studies. There are a wide variety of companies that aggregate and use these data for these types of studies, supporting everything from regulatory assessments to product dossiers. There is nothing inherently suspect about these data, but nobody ever really heard of Surgisphere or whatever before May. As you dig into the data source description it was just too good to be true.  Multi-national EMR.  Shit, people struggle to figure out national EMR integration domestically for this type of research. Superficial scrutiny revealed a whole set of inconsistencies and red flags regarding data integrity and quality.

I don't know what the relationships were with B&W/Harvard, Zurich and the Utah authors, but they should have been highly critical of the data source if they were not hands on with the data and the analysis, and had a clear and transparent understanding of its provenance. They provided a cloak of credibility through their affiliations that probably influenced the peer reviewers operating in the current environment (both in terms of medical urgency and political bias). The authors apparently failed to adhere to some of the basic requirements intended to protect against this kind of situation (http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html).

Throw the blame far and wide, imo. The apparently sham company, the co-authors (ghost authors?), the peer reviewers, the editorial boards.  Just a total fucking break down.  Like I said earlier, should be career enders for some folks.  

Edited June 5, 2020 by Anastasis

[Sejjr 3246]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

Large multi source datasets consisting of administrative claims data and electronic medical records are fairly typical. This is not trial data, this is real world data used to conduct observational studies. There are a wide variety of companies that aggregate and use these data for these types of studies, supporting everything from regulatory assessments to product dossiers. There is nothing inherently suspect about these data, but nobody ever really heard of Surgisphere or whatever before May. As you dig into the data source description it was just too good to be true.  Multi-national EMR.  Shit, people struggle to figure out national EMR integration domestically for this type of research. Superficial scrutiny revealed a whole set of inconsistencies and red flags regarding data integrity and quality.

I don't know what the relationships were with B&W/Harvard, Zurich and the Utah authors, but they should have been highly critical of the data source if they were not hands on with the data and the analysis, and had a clear and transparent understanding of its provenance. They provided a cloak of credibility through their affiliations that probably influenced the peer reviewers operating in the current environment (both in terms of medical urgency and political bias). The authors apparently failed to adhere to some of the basic requirements intended to protect against this kind of situation (http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html).

Throw the blame far and wide, imo. The apparently sham company, the co-authors (ghost authors?), the peer reviewers, the editorial boards.  Just a total fucking break down.  Like I said earlier, should be career enders for some folks.  

You clearly have knowledge in this arena, and I won't pretend to be any sort of an expert. But I do know what a scam artist looks like when I see one, and Dr Sepan Desai of Surgisphere is a classic grifter from the looks of it. The Guardian has done some good journalism on this story, as have others, and the findings are pretty incredible. This shit will be in a documentary soon. And this guy will probably do some jail time. He uses classic unverifiable nonsense terminology like "machine learning" to obfuscate the fact that he probably made up everything in that 96,000 patient observational study. It is not very different than the project he attempted to crowdfund a few years ago, Neurodynamics Flow (A Revolution in Human Evolution!). "Next generation of human augmentation." No wonder his "science editor" at his bullshit company is actually a science fiction writer. And his sales and marketing director is an "adult model." AKA porn.

What is truly remarkable is that this one guy impacted global medical professionals and entire countries' responses to COVID-19 research, not once, but TWICE, with his ivermectin preprint as well. It is really an incredible story, pathetic and awful as it is, and it is currently the poster child of this entire COVID experience. Even in the most dire of times, you can always count on sociopathic shitbags to try and take advantage any way they can.

[GRHorn 105]

5 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Large multi source datasets consisting of administrative claims data and electronic medical records are fairly typical. This is not trial data, this is real world data used to conduct observational studies. There are a wide variety of companies that aggregate and use these data for these types of studies, supporting everything from regulatory assessments to product dossiers. There is nothing inherently suspect about these data, but nobody ever really heard of Surgisphere or whatever before May. As you dig into the data source description it was just too good to be true.  Multi-national EMR.  Shit, people struggle to figure out national EMR integration domestically for this type of research. Superficial scrutiny revealed a whole set of inconsistencies and red flags regarding data integrity and quality.

I don't know what the relationships were with B&W/Harvard, Zurich and the Utah authors, but they should have been highly critical of the data source if they were not hands on with the data and the analysis, and had a clear and transparent understanding of its provenance. They provided a cloak of credibility through their affiliations that probably influenced the peer reviewers operating in the current environment (both in terms of medical urgency and political bias). The authors apparently failed to adhere to some of the basic requirements intended to protect against this kind of situation (http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html).

Throw the blame far and wide, imo. The apparently sham company, the co-authors (ghost authors?), the peer reviewers, the editorial boards.  Just a total fucking break down.  Like I said earlier, should be career enders for some folks.  

Since this is the political thread, let’s focus on the politics and what a great example this was of TDS. Have to believe that Trump touting potential of HCQ played significant in decision making process of multiple participants. Why else overlook so many red flags? 
 

The lesson here, just because someone you loathe says something doesn’t mean they’re wrong. Or right. Try to use your brain. 

[Dahobbs 17627]

59 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Since this is the political thread, let’s focus on the politics and what a great example this was of TDS. Have to believe that Trump touting potential of HCQ played significant in decision making process of multiple participants. Why else overlook so many red flags? 
 

The lesson here, just because someone you loathe says something doesn’t mean they’re wrong. Or right. Try to use your brain. 

I don't think that is the lesson here. Trump would have been wrong even if studies later provided support for the use of HCQ. You don't tout a drug with zero reliable evidence that is actually effective, especially when it has known side effects. The lesson here is to check who you're working with and to do a sanity check on your data. 

[Anastasis 23480]

5 hours ago, Sejjr said:

But I do know what a scam artist looks like when I see one, and Dr Sepan Desai of Surgisphere is a classic grifter from the looks of it.

It does appear that way. 

[Anastasis 23480]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't think that is the lesson here. Trump would have been wrong even if studies later provided support for the use of HCQ. You don't tout a drug with zero reliable evidence that is actually effective, especially when it has known side effects. The lesson here is to check who you're working with and to do a sanity check on your data. 

Yeah, this appears to be a breakdown at multiple points.  The biggest influencing factors, outside of the grifting angle, was the urgency related to COVID, and yes, some politicization that has occurred around HCQ.

You are correct that it does not change the fact that we still don't have good RCT data to support its use in any aspect of COVID treatment, but it was extremely harmful in that the publication influenced the conduct (and shutdown) of some ongoing trials. 

[Dahobbs 17627]

9 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Yeah, this appears to be a breakdown at multiple points.  The biggest influencing factors, outside of the grifting angle, was the urgency related to COVID, and yes, some politicization that has occurred around HCQ.

You are correct that it does not change the fact that we still don't have good RCT data to support its use in any aspect of COVID treatment, but it was extremely harmful in that the publication influenced the conduct (and shutdown) of some ongoing trials. 

Yeah, I assume that the actual scientists didn't enter into this with the goal of disproving HCQ as a viable treatment or making Trump look bad. Most likely, they were introduced to this guy who sold them on this massive data set he had that could be used for research. The Covid-19 urgency meant that they didn't do a thorough vetting of the guy or the data before starting their analysis. The fact that the study revealed potentially false problems with HCQ was a byproduct of those early mistakes. 

Edited June 5, 2020 by Dahobbs

[TwiceHorn 31512]

1 hour ago, GRHorn said:

Since this is the political thread, let’s focus on the politics and what a great example this was of TDS. Have to believe that Trump touting potential of HCQ played significant in decision making process of multiple participants. Why else overlook so many red flags? 
 

The lesson here, just because someone you loathe says something doesn’t mean they’re wrong. Or right. Try to use your brain. 

So, are you saying that Trump's wholly unqualified endorsement of a drug drove these fraudulent tests?  Or gave HCQ some "momentum" as a treatment that it would not otherwise have had?

I disagree.  I suspect that because HCQ is cheap and relatively readily available, compared to a rarefied biologic like remdesevir, it would have drawn study with or without Trump's bloviation about it.

Trump should have engaged his syphilitic brain before spewing about it.  But the rest was probably inevitable.

[GRHorn 105]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

Yeah, I assume that the actual scientists didn't enter into this with the goal of disproving HCQ as a viable treatment or making Trump look bad. Most likely, they were introduced to this guy who sold them on this massive data set he had that could be used for research. The Covid-19 urgency meant that they didn't do a thorough vetting of the guy or the data before starting their analysis. The fact that the study revealed potentially false problems with HCQ was a byproduct of those early mistakes. 

You’re right. I’m sure no one in this cast of characters that behaved outside of their professional norms were at all influenced by the actions of the most polarizing public figure in the world. It’s all a big coincidence. 
 

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't think that is the lesson here. Trump would have been wrong even if studies later provided support for the use of HCQ. You don't tout a drug with zero reliable evidence that is actually effective, especially when it has known side effects. The lesson here is to check who you're working with and to do a sanity check on your data. 

Why didn’t they do that? Going against standard operating procedure? Interdasting. 
 

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

So, are you saying that Trump's wholly unqualified endorsement of a drug drove these fraudulent tests?  Or gave HCQ some "momentum" as a treatment that it would not otherwise have had?

I disagree.  I suspect that because HCQ is cheap and relatively readily available, compared to a rarefied biologic like remdesevir, it would have drawn study with or without Trump's bloviation about it.

Trump should have engaged his syphilitic brain before spewing about it.  But the rest was probably inevitable.

No. I said what I said. 

[Dahobbs 17627]

14 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

You’re right. I’m sure no one in this cast of characters that behaved outside of their professional norms were at all influenced by the actions of the most polarizing public figure in the world. It’s all a big coincidence. 
 

Why didn’t they do that? Going against standard operating procedure? Interdasting. 

Coincidence? I think it was part of the reason that there was an urgency in analyzing whether or not HCQ was a potentially safe and effective treatment. But, I doubt any of the scientist came into this saying "I want to prove Trump wrong." If the data indicated it was safe, they would have published that as well. The Covid-19 urgency resulted in them skipping steps in verifying the source of their data. It is the same reason most studies right now are being published prior to peer-review. 

Edited June 5, 2020 by Dahobbs

[GRHorn 105]

9 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Coincidence? I think it was part of the reason that there was an urgency in analyzing whether or not HCQ was a potentially safe and effective treatment. But, I doubt any of the scientist came into this saying "I want to prove Trump wrong." If the data indicated it was safe, they would have published that as well. The Covid-19 urgency resulted in them skipping steps in verifying the source of their data. It is the same reason most studies right now are being published prior to peer-review. 

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on whether personal politics of academics involved played any part in their haste to publish data that was called into question almost immediately. 

[HenryJames 66135]

 

[GRHorn 105]

5 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

 

One good thing about the protests is now there’s no reason why we can’t do half capacity DKR in the fall. We’ve already had 50k in one place. Don’t tell me I’m gonna kill grandma. She’s a big fan and wants me to go. 

Edited June 5, 2020 by GRHorn

[Dahobbs 17627]

3 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on whether personal politics of academics involved played any part in their haste to publish data that was called into question almost immediately. 

Haste after they had the analysis? Maybe to some degree, after all the data indicated there was serious danger in administering HCQ as treatment.  

[PsychMike 1552]

11 hours ago, Anastasis said:

All of the co-authors are responsible.  When you typically sign authorship agreements, you attest that you have access to and confirm the data.  I see that the contingent from Harvard, Zurich, Utah have retracted their authorship. Their careers should be over. 

Yeah, I don't think that's correct on authorship agreements. There is a requirement for the corresponding author to disclose whether they had full access to the data. In my experience, authors may have solely been involved in interpreting data and in many cases they may not have even been involved as a PI for a site. When I first skimmed the original publication, it seemed legit. When I saw The Guardian article, I came away with the impression that Surgisphere and its founder Desai were almost certainly illegitimate. You could argue that the authors should have figured that out, and I don't disagree, especially since nobody could extract from the database except Surgisphere. But I'm sure the authors were focused on analyzing, interpreting, and publishing the data quickly to get information out to everyone, good or bad. There needs to be some kind of task force to look at the handling of Covid-19 data dissemination and try to set up better standards for every entity involved in the process to see how to keep integrity intact while allowing the public quick access in dire circumstances.

 

Here's the link to the Lancet author form:

https://els-jbs-prod-cdn.jbs.elsevierhealth.com/pb/assets/raw/Lancet/authors/tl-author-signatures.pdf

Here's the Guardian link to the article from one week ago:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/29/covid-19-surgisphere-hydroxychloroquine-study-lancet-coronavirus-who-questioned-by-researchers-medical-professionals

[Anastasis 23480]

16 minutes ago, PsychMike said:

You could argue that the authors should have figured that out, and I don't disagree, especially since nobody could extract from the database except Surgisphere. But I'm sure the authors were focused on analyzing, interpreting, and publishing the data quickly to get information out to everyone, good or bad. There needs to be some kind of task force to look at the handling of Covid-19 data dissemination and try to set up better standards for every entity involved in the process to see how to keep integrity intact while allowing the public quick access in dire circumstances.

I agree with this.  On attesting to access to and accuracy of the data, the Lancet disclosure does not appear to include this, but I have signed a number of agreements where this was explicitly required of at a minimum the first author.  Some require an attestation of some form in the actual article. They don't get a pass on this. 

Here is text from the Lancet article that has been retracted:

The corresponding author and coauthor ANP had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.

And here is text from the NEJM article, also retracted, from the same research group:

All the authors reviewed the manuscript and vouch for the accuracy and completeness of the data provided.

 

Here are the JAMA guidelines for comparison:

Data Access, Responsibility, and Analysis

For all reports (regardless of funding source) containing original data, at least 1 named author (eg, the principal investigator), and no more than 2 authors, must indicate that she or he "had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis."7 This exact statement should be included in the Acknowledgment section at the end of the manuscript. Modified statements or generic statements indicating that all authors had such access are not acceptable. In addition, for all reports containing original data, the names and affiliations of all authors (or other individuals) who conducted and are responsible for the data analysis must be indicated in the Acknowledgment section of the manuscript. If the individual who conducted the analysis is not named as an author, a detailed explanation of his/her contributions and reasons for his/her involvement with the data analysis should be included.

 

 

There is no excuse for this. The authors should be held accountable for the role they played in this shit show. If they got duped by Desai, fine, but their should not be allowed to hide behind a "well, I only provided interpretation of the results" screen. There are policies and procedures in place to prevent this sort of thing.  I would be surprised if their affiliations (Harvard, Zurich, Utah, etc.) did not have some SOPs related to this sort of stuff to protect the credibility of their institutions. 

[Message Board User 12395]

This is fucking crazy - now MEDICAL experts themselves are downplaying the risks of the Covid.

 

Edited June 5, 2020 by Message Board User

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 hour ago, GRHorn said:

One good thing about the protests is now there’s no reason why we can’t do half capacity DKR in the fall. We’ve already had 50k in one place. Don’t tell me I’m gonna kill grandma. She’s a big fan and wants me to go. 

Why haven't you intentionally infected yourself?  All of y'all have been bitching for months now and claim you aren't afraid.  You could have already been immune or dead by April 1 and already back to "normal." If all that think like you had intentionally infected themselves and sat out for 3 weeks, we would be on our way to herd immunity. 

[Hiphopopotamos 20876]

13 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

This is fucking crazy - now MEDICAL experts themselves are downplaying the risks of the Covid.

 

They're not downplaying the risks - they're saying that systemic racism is more dangerous.

[GRHorn 105]

5 minutes ago, Hiphopopotamos said:

They're not downplaying the risks - they're saying that systemic racism is more dangerous.

Systemic racism is more dangerous than a pandemic that caused the entire western world to willingly crash their economies?

That’s an interesting interpretation and quite the hot take. Go big or go home (or not). 

[Hiphopopotamos 20876]

2 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Systemic racism is more dangerous than a pandemic that caused the entire western world to willingly crash their economies?

That’s an interesting interpretation and quite the hot take. Go big or go home (or not). 

Did you actually read the letter or just the tweet?  They advocate for wearing masks and practicing social distancing.

I don't think it is a hot take to say that systemic racism has more devastating to the black community than COVID-19 - especially when you consider that systemic racism has disproportionately pushed the burden of COVID-19 on to the black community (as the letter states).

[Message Board User 12395]

15 minutes ago, Hiphopopotamos said:

Did you actually read the letter or just the tweet?  They advocate for wearing masks and practicing social distancing.

I don't think it is a hot take to say that systemic racism has more devastating to the black community than COVID-19 - especially when you consider that systemic racism has disproportionately pushed the burden of COVID-19 on to the black community (as the letter states).

Then they need to show their work rather than to say "Trust us."  For example, the risk of protesting may cost XX number of lives, while systemic racism costs XX number of lives.

Or put more bluntly - 

 

[gmr548 16590]

Since this is the political thread, let’s focus on the politics and what a great example this was of TDS. Have to believe that Trump touting potential of HCQ played significant in decision making process of multiple participants. Why else overlook so many red flags? 
 
The lesson here, just because someone you loathe says something doesn’t mean they’re wrong. Or right. Try to use your brain. 

Boy that's a hell of a reach but okay

[gmr548 16590]

Did you actually read the letter or just the tweet?  They advocate for wearing masks and practicing social distancing.
I don't think it is a hot take to say that systemic racism has more devastating to the black community than COVID-19 - especially when you consider that systemic racism has disproportionately pushed the burden of COVID-19 on to the black community (as the letter states).

Obviously on the whole that's probably true. But I think we can all agree the messaging sucks.

[Hiphopopotamos 20876]

Just now, gmr548 said:

26 minutes ago, Hiphopopotamos said:

Did you actually read the letter or just the tweet?  They advocate for wearing masks and practicing social distancing.
I don't think it is a hot take to say that systemic racism has more devastating to the black community than COVID-19 - especially when you consider that systemic racism has disproportionately pushed the burden of COVID-19 on to the black community (as the letter states).

Obviously on the whole that's probably true. But I think we can all agree the messaging sucks.

Absolutely.  This isn't a hill I'm interested in spending much time defending - but I thought the initial post/characterization of the letter was off.

[Message Board User 12395]

3 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

29 minutes ago, Hiphopopotamos said:

Did you actually read the letter or just the tweet?  They advocate for wearing masks and practicing social distancing.
I don't think it is a hot take to say that systemic racism has more devastating to the black community than COVID-19 - especially when you consider that systemic racism has disproportionately pushed the burden of COVID-19 on to the black community (as the letter states).

Obviously on the whole that's probably true. But I think we can all agree the messaging sucks.

Yeah I had a good laugh when these experts, who are obviously much smarter than me, said the protesters should social distance.

[Anastasis 23480]

20 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

Then they need to show their work rather than to say "Trust us."  For example, the risk of protesting may cost XX number of lives, while systemic racism costs XX number of lives.

I agree with this take.  They are people that require data and objective information to drive decision making on a daily basis.  So provide some in your justification and statement.  The reality is that many, if not most, of the signatures to that document are actually public health officials.  The document made the twitter rounds, it was not really a coordinated efforts exclusive to people engaged in public health. That doesn't take anything away from it, other than to say that they could have done better. 

[Message Board User 12395]

Excellent point here.

 

[Message Board User 12395]

Cases are spiking in Arizona.

But there are protests to attend so 🤷‍♂️.

 

[Message Board User 12395]

Twitter mob and the woke police are going to put Fauci in their crosshairs now.

 

[Pig Bellmont 8719]

13 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

Twitter mob and the woke police are going to put Fauci in their crosshairs now.

 

Why? No one on the left disputes the science behind the virus

[Message Board User 12395]

Apparently this is real.

But I guess if you live in Contra Costa County and throw a big party and the cops are called, just tell them it's a protest and it's all good.  🤣🤣🤣

 

 

[mdmost 43011]

22 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

Twitter mob and the woke police are going to put Fauci in their crosshairs now.

 

What a strange thing to try to fixate on or take up as a hypothetical issue. Most people still get that Covid is a threat but this isn't something that can wait until after people are given the all clear. 

Edited June 5, 2020 by mdmost

[Pancho 44880]

1 hour ago, GRHorn said:

Systemic racism is more dangerous than a pandemic that caused the entire western world to willingly crash their economies?

That’s an interesting interpretation and quite the hot take. Go big or go home (or not). 

As per usually, you dismiss it instead of asking questions.

[Pig Bellmont 8719]

1 minute ago, Message Board User said:

Apparently this is real.

But I guess if you live in Contra Costa County and throw a big party and the cops are called, just tell them it's a protest and it's all good.  🤣🤣🤣

 

 

Look, I get that it’s logically inconsistent. If it’s real, it’s probably because the local government is trying to protect itself from 1st Amendment lawsuits. What’s the ability of a government to restrict speech during a pandemic? It’s not likely courts would uphold  a complete bar on protests. 
 

The fact that people are moved to demonstrate in the streets during a pandemic underscores the seriousness of the racial problems with policing, and isn’t a repudiation of the belief that staying home saves lives. I don’t know why you’re struggling with this. More than 106,000 people are dead 

[ruitxn 298]

1 hour ago, GRHorn said:

Systemic racism is more dangerous than a pandemic that caused the entire western world to willingly crash their economies?

That’s an interesting interpretation and quite the hot take. Go big or go home (or not). 

I guess it depends on just how much you value freedom from discrimination, equal  justice, and love and care for all individuals.

[Guest Lobo]

You'd think a huge swath of people just done protesting about "Muh Rights", and then another group of people come along (many of them white as well) a few weeks later to protest about "Civil Rights" and suddenly, the first group is annoyed and offended?