Health advocates do not condemn these gatherings as risky for COVID-19 transmission

[Rev. Rye]

Yeah, it's almost like sometimes, there's a lot of factors to consider, an idea I've never seen you take into account, because literally every post you've made on issues, the solution is invariably all or nothing, and one of these extremes must be the right one. Trying to find a balance that could have a better outcome than either extreme is never an option for you.

While the decision to do massive protests just as America is opening is very questionable, the protesters' anger is very easy to understand, especially after you see the video of George Floyd's neck being pushed to the ground, find out he was kept down for 8:46, learn he was kept down for a bit less than 3 minutes after he lost consciousness (and for possibly passing off a counterfeit $20 bill as real at a convenience store, no less!), and realise that shit like this happens most every day in America.

The reopening protesters were essentially trying to demand something that was going to happen anyway with or without their input, except on a quicker timescale that could potentially lead to a huge spike in COVID cases while they were still increasing. The police brutality problem? I highly doubt that that's going to go away on its own.

And on "all lives?" I'm going to call bullshit. There was never going to be a possible COVID pandemic scenario where everything turns out okay. Concern about All Lives is meaningless when talking about Black people being subjected to police brutality. In situations like this, it's laughably so. A pandemic of this scale is all but guaranteed to cause a lot of deaths and a lot of economic disarray. If you think it's possible to try and manage something of this magnitude without taking "acceptable losses" into account, you clearly have no idea what's going on. It fucking sucks, but that's how it is.

And frankly, protesting something important (read: demanding something now that isn't inevitably coming in a few months anyway), during a time when the curve is actually fairly flat, when most states are starting to reopen, and scientists have enough of a handle on how the disease works that they can give advice on how to protest safely? I can really understand why Ken Wyatt says it might be a bad idea to protest now, but that said, if it can be done safely, I'd say go for it. And, surprisingly, it looks like, whether or not a second wave is going to happen, it's probably not happening now. Probably.

---

Funny thing, the fact that he seems to view everything like this is probably another point to add to the "Agnostico is more like an NPC than us" hypothesis, he sees a scenario and he only sees the options as:
0: Keep everybody under lockdown.
1: Keep everything open, even if it leads to a spike in cases that the medical facilities have to deal with.

The idea that the option that causes the least damage could be reviewing things on a case by case basis and that maybe the correct balance could be something like (to use a random 9-digit number I generated here) 0.538589898, let alone that at one point a few months ago, it could have been 0.102842757, and in a couple months, it might even be 0.859699987 appears to be entirely beyond his comprehension, which could also explain why he has never reacted to my pointing out that Australia's been slowly reopening over the past month. Which I have done multiple times in the past few weeks.