Will There Be a Secondary COVID Outbreak?

Will there be a secondary COVID outbreak?

Yes.

Every other country that has opened up (or suppressed the disease without closing) has had secondary outbreaks, so I see not reason to believe we will be an exception.

The question is how bad it will be.  I have no idea.

But I can make a few more predictions.

The vast majority of seemingly risky activity will not lead to secondary outbreaks.  All we go well -- until it doesn't.

Sooner or later something will lead to a secondary outbreak.  (Or multiple outbreaks).   No one has any way of foreseeing what will lead to the secondary outbreak, or when or where.  (Riots and demonstrations are a good candidate, though).

The real question will be whether we have a good enough test-and-trace system in place by then to suppress the outbreak quickly.  And whether we have learned enough about what is and is not safe to do so without too much disruption.  I am optimistic on the second question.

I have no idea about the first.

Miscellaneous Comments on the Riots

Things that I condemn (all at once)

Racism

Police brutality

The needless and senseless killing of George Floyd

Rioting, burning, looting and vandalism

Blocking traffic as protest tactic

Excess force in response to riots

Inflaming anger

Police armed, dressed, looking, and acting like an occupying army

Private citizens armed, dressed, looking and acting like a private army

(Private armies in general)

Things that I applaud

Reports of police calming protests by conciliatory actions.

Things I unhappily condone

Curfews, martial law, and summoning the National Guard to maintain order when nothing else works.  In Minneapolis in particular, the police clearly are not going to be able to calm the situation by conciliatory action, so there is little choice but to resort to force.  And, much as I hate to say it, I do agree with Donald Trump that the authorities there should have acted two days earlier.

Stiff penalties for rioters.  Letting riots go unpunished just encourages them.

Things I regard with deep skepticism

Reports of outside agitators, left or right.  I do not deny the possibility that such agitators exist, but usually people who blame outside agitators are ones who don't want to admit just how bad things are in their communities.

Black Lives Matter is a just cause, but it can't control its rowdy element.  Until it can, it should stay off the streets and find some other way to protest.  Come to think of it, they should stay off the streets anyhow, in light of corona virus.  Evidence is growing that non-crowded outdoors activities are safe, and that even crowds may be safe if all persons wear masks are are generally inactive.  But shouting, chanting and cheering in crows is most definitely not safe. 

Further thoughts

These riots are really, really bad.  We haven't seen anything like them since the 1960's.  And by this I mean, nothing so widespread.

Yes, there were riots in Ferguson and Baltimore four years ago.  But they were mild, short-lived, and localized.  Activists made a concerted effort to restrain the riots, with some success.  There were also the Rodney King riots of 1992, which were worse than anything we have seen so far this time.  But the Rodney King riots were a local phenomenon and did not spread all over the country.  To see multiple riots breaking out all across the US, you would have to go back to the 1960's. 

The duration is also alarming.

Why now?  Seriously, why were there minor, highly localized riots in Ferguson and Baltimore, then no riots for four years, and suddenly much worse riots, and much more widespread? 

I don't think it is outside agitators.  Nor can we blame social media.  After all, there were social media at the time of the mild and localized Baltimore and Ferguson riots but not when the 1960's riots broke out all over the country.

Is it Trump's fault?  I suppose his inflammatory remarks, together with the difference between hopeful protesters who see Washington as an ally and despairing protesters who see Washington as an enemy may have made some difference.  But I don't think you can blame it all on Trump.

Economic conditions?  Possible, I suppose. 

The very recent anti-lockdown protests?  Note that those did NOT escalate into violence, but neither did the protesters pretend that they were heavily armed because their intentions were so peaceful.  The threat of violence if they didn't get their way was definitely there.  Maybe resentment that white people could get away with it was a factor.

Are right wingers justified in claiming media bias?  After all, treatment of the anti-lockdown protests was markedly hostile and warned against further corona virus outbreaks.  Outbreaks of disease got a lot less emphasis this time, and much of the media was initially sympathetic to the protesters and more outrages and police actions and Donald Trump's inflammatory tweets than vandalism, looting, and arson.  I also thought it somewhat annoying to hear that "protests" were breaking out when what was really breaking out were riots.  Yes, the riots were offshoots of larger protests, but the distinction should be made.

On the other hands, reports of damage and fires are mincing no words.  And when the governor of Minnesota and mayor of Minneapolis claimed that most people being arrested were outsiders, new media investigated the claim, found it to be false, and said so.

I think what we are really seeing, both in alarms over reopening causing further outbreaks and in reports on the riots is above all a sensationalism bias.  Nothing new there.

And finally does this help Trump?  After all, riots go a long way toward promoting a law and order message.  And there is the usual rally-round-the-chief effect in times of crisis.  I am inclined to think this does help Trump, though he can easily overplay his hand and have it backfire. 

Now It's Rand Paul

Maybe I need to make a new label for beards.  Rand Paul is the latest addition.

Rand Paul without beard

Rand Paul with beard