A weekly window on the American political scene hosted by the Monitor's politics editors.

The perilous choice of protesting during coronavirus

Even as states reopen, epidemiologists caution against mass gatherings. But what if respecting one public health emergency means ignoring another?

Rick Bowmer/AP
Protesters demonstrate in Salt Lake City May 30, 2020. Protests over the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis have brought hundreds of people together in downtown Salt Lake City, adding to concerns about a rise in cases in the coming days and weeks.

Dear reader:
 
 Thousands of Americans have marched in big cities in recent days to protest police brutality and years of law enforcement-related killings of African Americans.
 
 In doing so, are they increasing the risk of a new wave of coronavirus outbreaks, by engaging in just the sort of mass gathering that health authorities have warned us to avoid as states slowly reopen from COVID-19 shutdowns?
 
 This is not a comment on demonstrators’ purpose. Monitor writers have covered the meaning and historical context of the protest explosion in numerous other stories since they began.
 
 But only weeks ago Americans congregating on beaches were getting shamed on social media. The crowds that have turned up in Washington, New York, Los Angeles, and other metropolises this week are big, and densely packed. Social distancing in that context is almost impossible – though masks are a help.
 
 Dr. Anthony Fauci – probably the most famous epidemiologist in America – continues to warn against big public gatherings, though he has stopped short of talking about the George Floyd protests directly. In a June 2 interview with the Journal of the American Medical Association a questioner mentioned the protest context but Dr. Fauci shifted focus a bit in his response.
 
 “Pictures, photos, and TV clips of people very much congregated, no masks together, very closely congregated on a boardwalk, on a beach, in a pool, has been and continues to be a concern to me,” Dr. Fauci said.
 
 Some other health experts and politicians have said that systemic racism and police brutality are also public health threats and thus it is understandable that people have gone straight from lockdown to the streets.
 
 If nothing else, this is a serious public health messaging challenge, pointed out NBC’s Suzy Khimm on Twitter June 3. On the one hand, authorities have said for months to be as isolated as possible. On the other hand, suddenly it’s OK to go to mass events – but only certain ones.
 
 The whole thing points out that instead of an all-or-nothing approach America may need a middle way to manage the risks inherent in living life during a pandemic.
 
 “The bottom line is we just don’t know what the COVID-19 risks of these protests are yet. We will have a better idea in a few weeks,” writes Ms. Khimm.
 
 Let us know what you’re thinking at csmpolitics@csmonitor.com

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.