The Public Health Hypocrites

There is a rumor going around on social media that the pandemic is over. That isn’t the case, but you’d never know it from public health officials around the country who seem to have tossed social distancing restrictions out in favor of the right to protest.

“A case in point is a recent article in Slate that details an open letter from infectious disease experts at the University of Washington, who write that “protests against systemic racism, which fosters the disproportionate burden of COVID-19 on Black communities and also perpetuates police violence, must be supported.” The letter has been signed by more than 1,000 medical experts from around the country.

Wait. Isn’t there a pandemic on?

While pictures of the protests and riots show some demonstrators wearing masks, many are not, and few are maintaining social distancing. Crowded conditions with a lot of physical activity and yelling would seem to be ripe for transmission of a very communicable disease that travels through the air on aerosol droplets of saliva.

Yet many doctors, such as Jennifer Nuzzo, an associate professor of environmental health and epidemiology at Johns Hopkins, argue that the risk of spreading the virus is worth it.

Jennifer Nuzzo, DrPH

✔@JenniferNuzzo

We should always evaluate the risks and benefits of efforts to control the virus. In this moment the public health risks of not protesting to demand an end to systemic racism greatly exceed the harms of the virus. https://twitter.com/jeremykonyndyk/status/1267805646348484609 …

Jeremy BLACK LIVES MATTER Konyndyk

✔@JeremyKonyndyk

For folks wondering why public health experts aren’t calling out the protests as violations of social distancing, take it from the former head of the CDC: https://twitter.com/drtomfrieden/status/1267796218496901121 …

416

2:25 PM - Jun 2, 2020

Twitter Ads info and privacy

3,018 people are talking about this

Similarly, Dr. Abraar Karan of Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School tweeted that he had concerns about the protests but “the status quo wasn’t going to stop COVID-19 either.”

Abraar Karan

✔@AbraarKaran

 · May 31, 2020

Replying to @AbraarKaran

2/ ...#covid19 will not go away.

Failing to treat every person w/ justice, respect, fairness, & humanity is a part of a *failed* epidemic response.

Epidemics like #covid19 are not solved in vacuums.

Abraar Karan

✔@AbraarKaran

3/ And while I have voiced concerns that protests risk creating more outbreaks, the status quo wasn’t going to stop #covid19 either

As much as this is a chapter in American racism, so too is it in the #covid19 response

It’s beyond time for us in public health to step up.

132

6:19 PM - May 31, 2020 · Boston, MA

Twitter Ads info and privacy

37 people are talking about this

The logic is explained in the open letter which states the doctors’ belief that “white supremacy is a lethal public health issue that predates and contributes to COVID-19.” The letter goes on to claim that “Black people” are endangered from Coronavirus because of the effect of “long-standing systems of oppression and bias which have subjected people of color to discrimination in the healthcare setting, decreased access to
medical care and healthy food, unsafe working conditions, mass incarceration, exposure to pollution and noise,
and the toxic effects of stress.”

The letter notes that “Black people are also more likely to develop COVID-19” and that they “are diagnosed later in the disease course and have a higher rate of hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, and death.” The signers consider this difference “yet another lethal manifestation of white supremacy.”

The signatories go on to say, “Staying at home, social distancing, and public masking are effective at minimizing the spread of COVID-19.”

Why, then, are the public health experts arguing that people should take it to the streets?

“To the extent possible,” the doctors write, “We support the application of these public health best practices during demonstrations that call attention to the pervasive lethal force of white supremacy. However, as public health
advocates, we do not condemn these gatherings as risky for COVID-19 transmission. We support them as vital to the national public health and to the threatened health specifically of Black people in the United States.”

So, these doctors argue that protesting is “vital” in this case. But don’t worry, they don’t support all protests. The letter clarifies, “This should not be confused with a permissive stance on all gatherings, particularly protests against stay-home orders. Those actions not only oppose public health interventions, but are also rooted in white nationalism and run contrary to respect for Black lives.”

So these doctors only support protesting in a pandemic if it is a cause that they feel good about. Unfortunately, as Ben Shapiro is fond of saying, “Facts don’t care about your feelings.”

And COVID-19 is a fact of life. It is a virus, which also does not care about your feelings.

These doctors are doing the public in general – and the many many Black people involved in the protests in particular – a disservice by pretending that the demonstrations will resolve the issue of police brutality and the specter of racism. Protests are more about feeling like you are doing something than actually accomplishing anything. (And I say this as someone who demonstrated with the Tea Party during the Obama era and who has taken part in pro-life demonstrations.)

The letter does suggest that demonstrators maintain a six-foot distance, wear masks, and take other precautions, but these mitigation strategies seem to have been used at few, if any, protests in the US (unlike this protest in Israel back in April). By encouraging people to engage in protests where social distancing is not practiced, the doctors are contributing to the higher rate of COVID-19 among the Black population that they profess to abhor.

In doing so, these doctors put hypocrisy on display and undermine their credibility. Why should people who want to open businesses, schools, or churches listen to the doctors’ recommendations to stay closed or social distance if they are telling people to protest in the street? Businesses can use the same social distancing restrictions that they recommend for protesters and can probably do so more effectively.

Admittedly, there are a few additional factors to consider. There has long been speculation that COVID-19 will be a seasonal bug that could be less dangerous in the summer months. Likewise, many parts of the country are experiencing a flattened curve that could mean that there fewer infected people to be out protesting and spreading the disease. Finally, outside activities in fresh air are probably generally safer than being in a crowded indoor space.

On the other hand, many of those possibilities are just theories at this point. If the curve has been flattened, we may still see a spike after the protests. Densely populated urban areas like those where most protests are occurring are more susceptible to transmission of the virus than rural areas.

It should also be noted that not all public health experts are signing off on demonstrations. One of the most prominent doctors to stand firm on the need for social distancing is none other than Anthony Fauci.

In an interview on Friday with the Washington, DC radio station WTOP, Fauci said, “Every time I hear about or see the congregation of large crowds at a time and geographic area where there is active infection transmission, it is a perfect set-up for the spread of the virus in the sense of creating these blips that might turn into some surges. So I get very concerned.” 

“There certainly is a risk, I would say that with confidence, when you see the congregation of crowds,” Fauci continued, “particularly in a situation where you have a lot of confusion and a little bit of chaos, people running back and forth, taking their masks off, being close in proximity, that does pose a risk.”  

It is too early to tell whether the demonstrations will spark a new wave of COVID-19 infections, but there is a significant risk of a new outbreak. For doctors, that should be the primary focus. As Dr. Fauci warns, even if medical experts are sympathetic to the aims of the protesters, their role as health professionals is to fight disease not advocate for social justice. While racism may be a public health threat in one sense, the Coronavirus is a public health threat in an even more real and urgent sense.

“It is a difficult situation,” Fauci said. “We have the right to peaceably demonstrate, and the demonstrators are exercising that right…it’s important to exercise your constitutional rights to be able to demonstrate, but it’s a delicate balance because the reasons for demonstrating are valid. And yet, the demonstration itself puts one at an additional risk.”

Racism and police brutality aren’t going away. Neither is COVID-19. As a nation, we need to fight all three. That means not jettisoning social distancing for political correctness.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Immigration ban could be expanded, even as resistance grows

Reince Priebus suggested on Sunday that President Trump could expand his immigration ban to other countries, even as resistance to the initial order grew. The White House Chief of Staff said on NBC’s “Meet The Press” that the president could issue new Executive Orders that might include restrictions on such countries as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Egypt.

The ban on the initial seven countries has caused as uproar as visitors to the US with valid visas were detained at ports of entry. A federal judge issued a ruling temporarily preventing the Trump Administration from deporting these detainees

The Wall Street Journal reported that the ban was enacted suddenly and secretly to prevent terrorists from circumventing the new security measures. Many immigration officials did not see the Order until after it was signed.

There were reports that several of the countries in the initial travel ban were considering retaliatory measures. CNN reported that Iran intended to take “reciprocal measures” to protest the Trump policy. An Iraqi investment magazine, the Baghdad Investor, reported that Iraq had implemented a policy similar to Mr. Trump’s on US citizens entering Iraq.

In many cities around the country, protesters took the streets to protest the policy. The Wall Street Journal reports that the State Department is taking the unusual step of drafting a cable to be signed by dissenting officials. The cable has not yet been released but reportedly has been signed by more than 100 mid-to-high level officials both in Washington and posted abroad.

Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) issued a joint statement criticizing Trump’s ban. “It is clear from the confusion at our airports across the nation that President Trump’s executive order was not properly vetted. We are particularly concerned by reports that this order went into effect with little to no consultation with the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security.”

The senators note that the ban also applies to Iraqis who fought alongside American soldiers against ISIS and al-Qaeda and that the policy may backfire. “This executive order sends a signal, intended or not, that America does not want Muslims coming into our country,” they write. “That is why we fear this executive order may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security.”

Fortune lists a growing number of Republicans who have gone on record as opposing Trump’s ban. Currently the list includes 18 Republican senators and congressmen from across the country.

Polling on the immigration ban has not yet been released, but Gallup’s daily approval rating showed a sharp uptick in disapproval of President Trump since the announcement of the ban last week. Disapproval of Trump now stands at a majority, 51 percent, while 42 percent approve.

Originally posted on The Resurgent

Occupy Wall Street poses election year liability for Democrats

Occupy protesters celebrated May Day, the traditional labor and communist holiday, with spasms of violence across the country on Monday. According to Buzz Feed, “Black Bloc” protesters in New York, the cradle of the Occupy movement, attacked photographers and tried to take their cameras. The New York Daily News reports that the NYPD arrested 86 protesters on charges “ranging from disorderly conduct to assaulting cops.”

On the West Coast, there was even more violence. In Oakland, police used tear gas and “flash bang” grenades to break up demonstrations and arrested at least 25 protesters according to CBS News. In Seattle, the violence seemed to be the worst as Occupiers dressed in black broke windows, vandalized cars, blocked traffic and did extensive damage to the federal courthouse MSNBC reports.

In Cleveland, protests were canceled after five members of Occupy Cleveland were arrested by the FBI for plotting to blow up bridges. The Plain Dealer reports that the men are anarchists who were part of the Occupy encampment on Cleveland’s Public Square. One of the men had been arrested with others in the Occupy movement for disrupting a Cuyahoga County foreclosure sale in March.

As the Occupy movement reawakens, it is becoming more of a liability for Democrats. A Quinnipiac poll from November 2011, the end of last year’s protest season, found that registered voters disapproved of the Occupy movement by a margin of 39 to 30 percent. A further 30 percent were undecided, but if the violence becomes more pronounced it is likely that more voters will turn against the Occupiers.

The problem for Democrats is that President Obama and many other prominent party members have backed the movement since its inception. Democrats have defended the movement as similar to the Tea Party, which has been linked to virtually no violence, and expressed support for the Occupiers and their goals. Democratic support for the movement continued even after protests turned violent in New York and elsewhere across the country.

In an ABC News interview from October 2011, President Obama responded to the protests saying, “The most important thing we can do right now is those of us in leadership letting people know that we understand their struggles and we are on their side, and that we want to set up a system in which hard work, responsibility, doing what you’re supposed to do, is rewarded.”

The president also noted in the same interview that “In some ways, they [Occupy Wall Street] are not that different from some of the protests that we saw coming from the Tea Party.  Both on the left and the right, I think people feel separated from their government. They feel that their institutions aren’t looking out for them.”

On another occasion, after being heckled by Occupy protesters, President Obama responded “Families like yours, young people like the ones here today — including the ones who were just chanting at me — you’re the reason that I ran for office in the first place.” A video of the incident is linked by the Weekly Standard.

Similarly, Vice President Joe Biden said in an interview quoted on Talking Points Memo, ““What is the core of that protest, and why is it increasing in terms of the people it’s attracting — the core is the bargain has been breached with the American people. The core is the American people do not think the system is fair or on the level….. That is the core of what you’re seeing on Wall Street.” Biden went on to compare Occupy Wall Street with the rise of the Tea Party.

Even congressional Democrats stated support for the Occupy Movement. Senate majority leader Harry Reid said that “the gulf between rich and poor… has motivated thousands to occupy parks across the country and make their voices heard” according to Politico. Former house speaker Nancy Pelosi told ABC News “I support the message to the establishment, whether it's Wall Street or the political establishment and the rest that change has to happen.”

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee posted an online petition supporting Occupy Wall Street. The website says that the petition is a response to Rep. Eric Cantor’s (R-Va.) comment that he was “increasingly concerned by the growing mobs” of protesters. The petition begins, “As Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi told reporters, ‘The message of the American people is that no longer will the recklessness of some on Wall Street cause massive joblessness on Main Street….’”

The Occupy movement has not returned the Democratic love. Anger at President Obama’s corporate bailouts has been a central pillar of the Occupy movement since its inception. An informal survey of Occupy Atlanta protesters last summer on Examiner.com revealed that more were aligned with Ron Paul than with Barack Obama. As noted earlier, Occupiers also harassed and heckled President Obama at speeches. When Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) tried to address Occupy Atlanta last year, he was turned away because the movement was “not about one individual” and recognized “no hierarchy” according to Creative Loafing.

All of this puts Democrats in a difficult position with respect to the November elections. The Democrats have publicly aligned themselves with a movement that is physically attacking businesses and spawning domestic terrorists. As the movement becomes more overtly violent, it is likely to lose even more support among the American people.

If the Democrats continue to stand with Occupy Wall Street as it becomes more violent, they risk alienating independent and moderate voters. If they reject the Occupiers and their violent tactics, they risk alienating the left-wing Democratic base, which is already unhappy with many of the president’s policies. To win their elections, President Obama and threatened Democrats in the senate need to win the majority of independent voters while maximizing the turnout of their base.

Much of the damage to the Democratic base may already be done. A video posted by the Washington Free Beacon shows Occupiers in New York expressing their dissatisfaction with President Obama this week at the May Day gathering. The protesters say that President Obama betrayed them and call him a liar. One man (not on the video) said, “I feel that Obama, especially on the civil liberties perspective, has raped me in the a–.” Another says that he will “never again vote for a Democrat for anything, not even dogcatcher.”

 

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/occupy-protests-pose-election-year-liability-for-democrats

Occupy Atlanta back in Woodruff Park

Four months after Atlanta police evicted Occupy Atlanta protesters from Woodruff Park, they are back. With apparently little to no fanfare, a small number of Occupiers and less than ten tents have again taken up residence the downtown Atlanta park.

The new encampment is a far cry from the group that was evicted in October. In mid-October, the activists had set up a thriving hamlet within the confines of what they called “Troy Davis Park” in a nod to the convicted cop-killer who was executed by Georgia in September. At that time, the activists in the park easily numbered more than 100 and scores of tents filled the park. There was a “free store,” a medical tent, and a “free child care” tent. Signs proclaiming “we are the 99 percent” littered the grounds of the park. Visitors were welcomed at tables under a large canopy. The sound of drums permeated the air and protesters marched up and down the sidewalks at intervals. (View photos from the October occupation here.)

In contrast, the new encampment consists of only a handful of tents and three visible occupiers, all men. Two occupiers talked while another played with his dog on the grass. The only sign in evidence, other than scribbled notes on the tents, was one with a rambling message about a “Jewish rebel,” an apparent attempt to link the encampment to Jesus Christ.

One of the occupiers said that he had been a protester during the Vietnam War. The man said that he believed that the U.S. did “need to be in Afghanistan,” but offered his belief that that the City of Atlanta discriminated on the basis of economic status as justification for the presence of the protesters.

As justification for this belief, he said that an Atlanta police officer allegedly arrested him for jaywalking while he was dressed shabbily and had his long hair down. He said that he later did the same thing in front of the same police officer while wearing business clothes with his hair tucked under a hat. On that occasion, he said the officer simply waved at him.

The man said that he had been camping in the park for several months although he did not live there full time because he “like[s] to be indoors.” He did not offer a specific date for when the protesters returned to the park after the Mayor Kasim Reed had them evicted in October. He did say that the current group was very different from the idealists who inhabited the park in the fall. He said that fights now occurred frequently. In October, both police and protesters said that there was no trouble from the Occupiers.

A downtown ambassador wasn’t sure how long the Occupy Atlanta encampment had been back either. He confirmed that the new group was not as peaceful as the original encampment. According to the ambassador, 80 to 90 percent of the new Occupiers were homeless people who spend their time in the park drinking. This often leads to violence. The larger encampment in October prohibited the use of alcohol and drugs. The ambassador did not know if the mayor plans to order the new Occupiers evicted from the park as well.

A spokesman for the mayor was not aware that Occupy Atlanta was camping in the park again. He stated that the group was allowed to be in the park until it closes at 11:00 p.m., but that no overnight camping is allowed. He planned to have Atlanta police officers investigate.

This article was first published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/occupy-atlanta-back-woodruff-park

Wisconsin-esque protests are unlikely in Georgia

Wikimedia Commons/Justin Ormont

As the country watches the protests unfolding in Wisconsin over Gov. Scott Walker’s plan to remove the right of government employee unions to bargain collectively, many Georgians are probably wondering whether the Peach State might see a similar revolt by teachers over attempts to cut pay and benefits.  Many states share Wisconsin’s problem of deficit spending due to the recession and falling tax revenues, as well as expensive contracts with state government employees. 

While Georgia has shared Wisconsin’s budget problems over the past few years, it does not have Wisconsin’s problem of out of control public employee unions.  In Wisconsin, all teachers are required to be members of the teacher’s union.  The government deducts union dues from each teacher’s paycheck and funnels the money directly to the union.  In return, the union funnels a portion of the money back to politicians, usually Democrats, as campaign contributions.  These politicians then negotiate sweetheart deals for the union members when it is time to renegotiate their contracts, often neglecting to fund promised items such as pensions.  In the current crisis, fourteen state senators, all Democrats, have fled the state to avoid giving Gov. Walker the needed number of votes to pass the law.  Essentially, the senators are thwarting democracy to keep the system alive.

Not surprisingly, the Wisconsin system has led to growth in government salaries and benefits.  Not only do government workers in most states make significantly more than their private sector counterparts, they have more generous benefits for which they pay a smaller share.  Wisconsin teachers reportedly have two state-funded pension plans at a time when many private employees do not have one at all.  Ironically, these generous benefits and paychecks are funded by taxpayers, who often have to pay larger portions of their own health and retirement benefits from a paycheck that is, on average, smaller than that of government employees.  It is a wealth transfer that benefits the wealthier government employees. 

It is also not surprising that this has led to an explosion in union membership among government workers.  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the rate of union membership among government workers (36.2%) is more than five times higher than that of private workers (6.9%).

The Wisconsin system is a relic of the days when tax revenues seemed inexhaustible.  If funds ran short, the government would simply raise taxes.  Today it is unworkable.  In an economy ravaged by the Great Recession, it is impossible to continually raise taxes to pay for expensive government programs (or expensive government workers) without doing further damage to the private citizens and businesses that provide the real engine for economic growth in the state.  The 2010 census revealed that people and businesses are fleeing high tax states for those that are friendlier to business.

In contrast, Georgia is a right to work state where workers cannot be forced to join or contribute to a union.  According to USA Today, government workers in Georgia already earn almost $3,900 less than private workers on average.  Georgia state employees also do not have collective bargaining rights with the state.  This means that the state can enact pay cuts and layoffs without going through lengthy negotiations with the union.  This means that Georgia’s governor can act quickly to trim the budget in times of fiscal distress.   Georgia teachers have already faced pay cuts, furloughs, and layoffs over the past few years. 

Georgia is tied with Arkansas for the second lowest rate of union membership in the country, but what really differentiates Georgia from Wisconsin is that Georgia’s union members do not have the ability to negotiate with bureaucrats for pay and benefit increases while bypassing the taxpayers who, in reality, must foot the bill.  This means that, while Georgia state employees may be impacted by further budget cuts, their salaries are already much closer to market rates in the current economy than those of states where collective bargaining has established artificially high wages.

Georgia is also in much better shape with respect to pension liabilities.  States like Wisconsin and California have massive unfunded pension liabilities that threaten to sink the entire state economies.  These states did not set aside money to pay pension benefits for their employees, instead gambling that the money could be raised through higher taxes or economic growth.  Wisconsin’s unfunded pension liability is a staggering $77 billion.  In contrast, Georgia’s state employee pensions are almost totally funded.

It is also unlikely that all or most of Georgia’s Democratic legislators would flee the state to prevent a vote on legislation.  In the General Assembly, a majority of members is required to transact business.  The Georgia Senate is made of 56 senators, of which 20 are currently Democrats.  The House of Representatives has 180 members.  Sixty-three representatives are currently Democrats.  Therefore, even if all Democrats left the state, there would be enough Republicans left to conduct business.  Wisconsin is one of only a few states to require a supermajority to pass legislation, and then only in budgetary matters.  

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/wisconsin-style-protests-unlikely-georgia#ixzz1FOsNLJwB">