Do protests threaten our efforts at reducing the virus

[Tetchytyke]

Banning all protest - but ignoring that when it happens to be a protest that is politically convenient to support

No protests have been banned, indeed anti-lockdown protests were allowed to go ahead several weeks ago.

 

[MikeWM]

No protests have been banned, indeed anti-lockdown protests were allowed to go ahead several weeks ago.

Any gathering of more than 6 people is banned under the current regulations. I've seen some SWP protests that have had fewer people than that but in general protests need numbers to have any impact.

As I said, the powers-that-be may choose to turn a blind eye and 'allow' those that they think suitable, but that's not a 'right' to protest, as is enshrined in every democratic settlement.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Any gathering of more than 6 people is banned under the current regulations.

No protest has been prevented from going ahead. Nothing has been "banned".

 

[MikeWM]

No protest has been prevented from going ahead. Nothing has been "banned".

It's against the law! That's a pretty good definition of 'banned'.

 

[mmh]

No protests have been banned, indeed anti-lockdown protests were allowed to go ahead several weeks ago.

That's not true, an anti-lockdown protest was stopped in London a few weeks ago and people arrested and charged with breaking the coronavirus legislation. It wasn't widely reported in the media other than as an "and finally" story due to Piers Corbyn being one of those arrested.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It wasn't widely reported in the media other than as an "and finally" story due to Piers Corbyn being one of those arrested.

It was very widely reported and, yes, Corbyn was arrested but the protest still happened.

Should he have been arrested? I don't know, but as I've been critical of all this Covid panic since day 1, I can guess probably not.

 

[HLE]

Yes, the protests are undermining the national effort to contain the virus.

Considering, until recently, ethnic minorities were apparently more at risk of becoming seriously ill or dying from Covid-19, and inquiries into it were being called for it from people like Doreen Lawrence, it's shocking to see thousands on the streets wilfully breaking the law and putting them all at substantially more risk.

One video yesterday from parliament shown a policeman being attacked by the protestors. Ironically, he looked to be Asian, or of Asian descent. Poor bloke was doing his job just like his colleagues and is probably nursing a few bruises and pains right now.

These protests aren't about black lives, they're about an opportunity to rebel and break the law. People of all colours are complicit in this, the same as the 2011 riots.

Shocking at the ignorance too from the majority of people. I've heard and seen far more racism directed at Asian people, or people of Asian descent, people who aren't 'black' (ie. Afro-Carribean).

 

[HLE]

I don't think they're likely to have any more impact than other recent events.

I'm certainly very suspicious of those who criticise the protests for spreading the virus, while remaining silent on the crowds flocking to the beaches or Dominic Cummings.

Rubbish. Cummings might have infected one, possibly two, if his account of his movements is genuine, but these protests will infect hundreds, if not thousands.

I'll happily criticise those on the beaches not keeping their distance.

 

[philosopher]

Matt Hancock and Nicola Sturgeon have both today said not attend these protests. So presumably there is concern in the UK and Scottish governments that protests will lead to more infections.

 

[Jozhua]

But we seem to be switching from governing by consent where we agree on the things that shouldn't be allowed, to governing by consent where we agree on what things we'll turn a blind eye too. That's really bad.

Banning all protest - but ignoring that when it happens to be a protest that is politically convenient to support - is not a good place for a society to be.

I was skeptical when reading this, but I actually completely agree.

Unfortunately, I think the governance by consent is failing, I think somewhat due to governance by force of Coronavirus restrictions.

I actually think all protests should have been allowed from the beginning, it is a scary prospect is a supposedly free society to hand our freedoms over like this. Remember, we may not have needed all of these restrictions had testing and containment policies been more effective. If checks and advice were given out at the border, or quarantining of arrivals from high risk areas.

And also, what the hell did they think would happen after locking people in their homes for three months?

 

[Skymonster]

Banning protests is, I hope, an unintended side effect of the CV19 rules on gatherings. Deliberately taking away people’s right to protest is be a totalitarian step that would ultimately cause untold mayhem and on that basis I believe the police were very right not to break up the events earlier this week (albeit that criminal damage should be dealt with of course).

 

[squizzler]

Dominic Cummins destroyed the will of the people to stay at home nearly two weeks ago forcing the government into post-hoc dilution of laws and guidance relating to same. Because the virus takes a couple of weeks to gestate the resulting uptick is due anytime now.

Of course the so-called establishment will try blame the rising 'R' number on the protests, hoping people are too stupid to notice that the a rise in diagnosis in the week following protests will not be from infections thus caused.

 

[Huntergreed]

I’m sorry but large public protests at this stage of the pandemic aren’t really acceptable. Of course it’s important to allow protesting to take place and for the public to be heard, in fact society would be very scary indeed if this was ever taken away, but it’s showing a complete disregard for the sacrifices that we have made during the lockdown, the hard work of the NHS staff on the frontline, and the wellbeing and health of others.

Let me state: I entirely support the cause of the protests. I was horrified by what happened and I entirely agree that it’s important to speak out and try to make racial inequality a thing of the past. However, is it fair to those who are shielding, those who cannot see their families, those who have followed the rules completely and are sacrificing everything they love to protect our NHS to simply make a point which could be done online through petitions or online campaigns. If even one of those protesters had Covid, they could have passed it on to hundreds, if not thousands, and potentially have caused another lockdown and reversed our progress further, and I find it even more shocking that the government seem to support these protests with no regard for safety, no social distancing, and no regard for the virus.

If the protests were socially distanced and safe, of course I would support them and I would likely attend them, but I’m not going to risk the vulnerable’s lives amid a pandemic, and I fear this has just caused untold damage that we will see in a week or two through a sharp exponential rise in cases, hospital capacity being filled again, and potentially another lockdown.

 

[Skymonster]

I’m sorry but large public protests at this stage of the pandemic aren’t really acceptable.

The preservation of the right to protest, of free speech and self expression, should ALWAYS be one of the vital tenets of our society, no matter what the ramifications. While social distancing should be an underlying objective, right now using the COVID regulations to break up a march bring attention to another unrelated but highly emotive subject would not have been a sensible approach as it would likely have provoked much greater disorder. Using the “but you might infect others” line is not adequate justification for breaking up a protest. We live in a society in which we are encouraged to take responsibility for ourselves and on that basis those who wish to take the risk of being infected by others must be allowed to protest, while the more risk-averse can practice their protest in a more self-isolated way.

 

[yorkie]

There was no way the protests could have been prevented; I agree it would have caused far more problems if that was attempted.

 

[Sherlock49]

ONS statistics (although stretching back to a reporting period of 15 May to 30 May) suggest 1 in 1000 people have Coronavirus at any given time. If there were 50,000 people at the protest, we'd expect to see 50 people with Coronavirus - however many with symptoms will be self isolating anyway, and many protestors were wearing masks etc. I'd be surprised if you got an extra 100 cases out of the protests - hardly enough to register as a spike.

I still think it's misjudged at the current time but I understand the anger behind those protesting.

 

[Skymonster]

ONS statistics (although stretching back to a reporting period of 15 May to 30 May) suggest 1 in 1000 people have Coronavirus at any given time. If there were 50,000 people at the protest, we'd expect to see 50 people with Coronavirus - however many with symptoms will be self isolating anyway, and many protestors were wearing masks etc. I'd be surprised if you got an extra 100 cases out of the protests - hardly enough to register as a spike.

That argument is far too logical to get much visibility. Because it doesn’t suit the agenda of the government, the headline-hungry media or the corona-moaners.

 

[underbank]

We live in a society in which we are encouraged to take responsibility for ourselves and on that basis those who wish to take the risk of being infected by others must be allowed to protest, while the more risk-averse can practice their protest in a more self-isolated way.

We have to hope the protesters are responsible enough to self-isolate so that they don't pass anything on to vulnerable people they may come into contact with - I'm sure some of the protesters will be carers, nurses, public transport workers, etc. They should ensure that they do whatever is necessary to avoid the risk of passing Covid onto people around them.

 

[BJames]

I did see a couple of interesting signs on social media being held up at the protest that I thought summed up people's views and reasons for attending the protest quite well:

"Increasing the risk of a second wave of Covid; Decreasing the risk of the 450th wave of racism" and also, more simply, "Racism is a pandemic".

As I've said before I didn't go but do strongly support the cause. You can't really enforce lockdown in this instance, as the politicians clearly know with their very light stance on this - any attempt at enforcement could cause a peaceful protest to turn violent.

 

[BJames]

We have to hope the protesters are responsible enough to self-isolate so that they don't pass anything on to vulnerable people they may come into contact with - I'm sure some of the protesters will be carers, nurses, public transport workers, etc. They should ensure that they do whatever is necessary to avoid the risk of passing Covid onto people around them.

This is actually a very good point. Fortunately my friends who did go are doing just that - the right thing to do when you're supporting the cause but not wanting to increase risk to others who chose not to attend.

 

[philosopher]

If the protests were socially distanced and safe, of course I would support them and I would likely attend them, but I’m not going to risk the vulnerable’s lives amid a pandemic, and I fear this has just caused untold damage that we will see in a week or two through a sharp exponential rise in cases, hospital capacity being filled again, and potentially another lockdown.

I think the organisers of these protests have to ask themselves whether it was wise to organise large demos in public squares that can only accommodate a certain number of people and whether at this time there are not more appropriate ways to express their feelings. For example they could have asked people to protest in small socially distanced groups of 4, 5 or 6 people outside their homes,

If there is spike in cases in a week’s time, then some people are inevitably going to blame the protests for this. This will not help their admirable cause.

 

[greyman42]

We have to hope the protesters are responsible enough to self-isolate so that they don't pass anything on to vulnerable people they may come into contact with - I'm sure some of the protesters will be carers, nurses, public transport workers, etc. They should ensure that they do whatever is necessary to avoid the risk of passing Covid onto people around them.

I think we know that they have no intention of self isolating after their protest.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

They are, but the police have stated (post #2) that if they tried to enforce the law then the law breakers are likely to turn violent.

I find that quite worrying. I understand that, from a pragmatic point of view the police officers on the ground at the time may justifiably have felt it was better to avoid the risk of violence. But, from a more general perspective - do we really want to become the kind of society where the police are afraid to enforce the law because of the risk that those breaking the law might turn violent?

 

[Bletchleyite]

One thing of note here is that my contact in PHE I've quoted here before does believe the scale of these protests means that there is a considerable chance that some of the releasing dates may need to be pushed on a week or two as a result of spread they cause. So we potentially could see the changes planned for next Monday moving to 4th July and the 4th July ones to mid/late July, but there's no way of knowing for sure the effect for a week or two.

 

[yorksrob]

One thing of note here is that my contact in PHE I've quoted here before does believe the scale of these protests means that there is a considerable chance that some of the releasing dates may need to be pushed on a week or two as a result of spread they cause. So we potentially could see the changes planned for next Monday moving to 4th July and the 4th July ones to mid/late July, but there's no way of knowing for sure the effect for a week or two.

One thing I don't understand about these protests is what will be the protester's decision point for ending them ?

They seem to have become twice weekly, and ending racism seems to be a long term aspiration, so at what point will they decide not to come back next week.

 

[Mag_seven]

So we potentially could see the changes planned for next Monday moving to 4th July and the 4th July ones to mid/late July

I can imagine such a move would be very controversial.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can imagine such a move would be very controversial.

Of course the person concerned works in PHE, and so gives advice, and there's no guarantee the Government won't simply decide to take the risk and go ahead anyway. I'm leaning towards the latter being the case myself. It is I would say unlikely we will drop to level 3 next Monday, though.

 

[philosopher]

I find that quite worrying. I understand that, from a pragmatic point of view the police officers on the ground at the time may justifiably have felt it was better to avoid the risk of violence. But, from a more general perspective - do we really want to become the kind of society where the police are afraid to enforce the law because of the risk that those breaking the law might turn violent?

The best way to respond to these protests is to let them fizzle out on their own. Letting the protests continue is probably the best way to achieve this. The media will at some point lose interest in reporting on them and if the public at large have the view they are undermining efforts at controlling the virus they will lose public support. If the police try to break up the protests and they turn violent as a result, there will be accusations the police overreacted which will lead to further protests.

 

[underbank]

But, from a more general perspective - do we really want to become the kind of society where the police are afraid to enforce the law because of the risk that those breaking the law might turn violent?

I think that boat sailed a few decades ago. I used to be in the police in the 80s and we were told in no uncertain terms not to go near certain locations where a certain demographic of person lived nor to try to enforce motoring laws on the vehicles driven by that demographic of person. In fact, if our enquiries following a crime led us to that demographic we had to refer the matter to the inspector for guidance which usually resulted in the response that it was passed to a particular group of specialists (in reality we knew it was just filed and forgotten!). The crime had to be really serious, i.e. hospitalisation after GBH or murder for further action to be taken.

I also remember doing a foot patrol with an "old hand" through a rough council estate in the middle of the night when we heard the sound of breaking glass - I started to walk towards it, but the other guy was adament to walk the other way and pretend we heard nothing.

 

[sheff1]

... those who wish to take the risk of being infected by others must be allowed to protest, while the more risk-averse can practice their protest in a more self-isolated way.

If a certain body of people must be allowed to break the law, then surely everybody must be allowed to break the law.
And is it just the law on gatherings everyone must be allowed to break, or other laws as well ?