freediver wrote on Aug 6
th, 2020 at 9:15pm:
Yes it does. They allowed it to happen. They signalled beforehand that they would allow it, even though they had already made it illegal.
What did they say exactly FD? No one actually turned around and said it suddenly wasn't illegal anymore. Fines were still issued to organisers. You do however have to be practical. You can't always just magically stop thousands of people intending to protest - no matter how much you stress how illegal it is. Sometimes you just have to manage it as best you can.
My understanding is that it was the police who decided they would not be issuing fines, arresting or getting into any potential physical situation with thousands of protestors. And if you actually stopped and thought about it for 2 seconds, thats actually the safest option if you are interested in avoiding potential spraed of the virus. The last thing you want is for police and protestors getting into open scuffles, which obviously would involve significant physical contact, and thus maximising the potential spread of an infection. That would be the worst case scenario, and what would most certainly have happened if the illegal protest (which remained illegal) was actually policed.
Says deputy police commissioner:
Quote:"We dont want to be applying any use of force whatsoever
we dont even want this to go ahead, but if it does, we will try and have a peaceful [event], but people have to be accountable for their actions," he said.
"If it goes ahead we'll probably have to apply a lot of discretion because you can't practically issue thousands and thousands of infringements."
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/melbourne-organisers-of-stop-black-d...So thats two suspect statements you've attributed to the Victorian government FD - 1. that they claimed the BLM protest didn't cause the spread of the virus and 2. that they "signalled" (whatever that means) they would allow it after they previously had already made it illegal. For someone who glibly claims the moral high ground about the need to stick to "substantive claims", this all looks suspiciously like BS to me.
Of course none of this addresses the key point that there is still zero evidence that the protest caused the outbreak. And are you still running with the BS idea that your correlation graph is somehow evidence it caused the outbreak?
freediver wrote on Aug 6
th, 2020 at 9:15pm:
Back to square one. What do they actually say? The closest you have come to abandoning mindless rhetoric for a substantive claim was attributing 60 cases to it.
"what they actually say" is pretty well summed up in the article you still refuse to read. And apparently you are still clueless as to how significant 60 cases can be to an outbreak of such an infectious virus, in the actual numbers (still only in the hundreds of new infections each day) that we are seeing.
Forum
Pages: 
did the protestors spread the virus? (Read 22658 times)
