Public Health Should be Above Politics. Was a Line Crossed in Favor of Black Lives Matter Protests?

As was established in the last blog post, public health authorities have broad powers under the constitution to restrict individual liberty to combat a health crisis. However, these restrictions must be applied fairly, without prejudice to content or viewpoint. Black Lives Matter protests have been taking place across the country for over two months, in apparent violation of social distancing and public gathering restrictions. Have the public health authorities crossed the “neutral” line? 
​
In the wake of the George Floyd killing by Minneapolis police, demonstrations against police brutality have erupted across the country. Black Lives Matter protests took place in cities large and small. This became real to me when protests shut down Highway 101 running through the middle of Santa Rosa, on the evening of June 5. Unable to make it home on the 101, I took an alternative route through the city’s downtown. I soon ran into the middle of a group of people marching through the city chanting “Black Lives Matter”. The protest was peaceful and I never felt threatened. Several nights of protests followed in the downtown area. Some looting and vandalism did occur late at night, long after most of the peaceful protestors had left. All this got me thinking “what about the public health orders put in place to stop the spread of the coronavirus”? There were orders in place to restrict outdoor gatherings to 100 attendees, as well as social distancing and face covering requirements. I reached out to city and county officials for answers, but never received any. My city was not alone. Major protests and marches were taking place in Milwaukee, New York, Washington DC, Seattle, Denver, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and in hundreds of cities across our country. COVID-19 was no longer public health enemy number one. It had been replaced by police brutality and systemic racism. 

​Many public officials took part in the protests, including the mayors of Minneapolis and Washington DC, chiefs of police, including the one in my city, and the Governor of New Jersey Phil Murphy. But most of these protests were taking place in cities which restricted public gatherings to 50-100 people. Social distancing and facial covering mandates were in place as well. This is why shouts of “liberal hypocrisy” started to be heard (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/06/conservatives-charge-liberals-with-social-distancing-hypocrisy-304435). Opponents of New Jersey Governor Murphy claimed that he was violating his own executive order by picking winners and losers by blurring the line between protests “worthy of participation and those deserving prosecution”(https://www.fox5ny.com/news/nj-governor-questioned-about-attending-rallies-during-stay-at-home-order

​Apparently not all protests are created equal. Conservatives have pointed out that lockdown protests during April and May were prohibited by public health officials because they violated social distancing and public gathering restrictions. But the protests against police brutality, which began in late May, appear to be condoned by the public health community. Even though these recent protests have occurred as many cities began lifting stay-at-home restrictions, and many of the protestors wore face coverings, there is much evidence in support of the conservative view. A national group of 1,288 health professionals signed the “Open letter advocating for an anti-racist public health response to demonstrations against systemic injustice occurring during the COVID-19 pandemic”. The open letter (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Jyfn4Wd2i6bRi12ePghMHtX3ys1b7K1A/view) states “white supremacy is a lethal public health issue”, and “in addressing demonstrations against white supremacy, our first statement must be one of unwavering support for those who would dismantle, support, or reform racist institutions”.  The open letter further states that “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”. The open letter also spells out why the Black Lives Matter protests are different than the earlier protests against stay-at-home orders. 

​The American Public Health Association declared systemic racism a public health crisis at the beginning of June. Soon after, Colorado, Wisconsin and Michigan, along with cities in several other states, have declared systemic racism to be a public health emergency or crisis (https://www.apha.org/topics-and-issues/health-equity/racism-and-health/racism-declarations). One of the key justifications for these declarations is that COVID-19 has affected communities of color at a disproportionate rate. I think that the public health community is justified in shining a light on systemic racism. It has clearly led to many inequities in our society, particularly in areas of housing, education and health outcomes. According to recent polls, most Americans support the views of the Black Lives Matter protests (https://news.gallup.com/poll/316106/two-three-americans-support-racial-justice-protests.aspx).

But, is there legal justification to favor one form of protest over another? Probably not. But that’s for the courts to decide. Even though public health officials have broad constitutional powers during health emergencies, there are limits. Consider this: people are shot and killed on a daily basis in several of our major cities, namely Detroit and Chicago. Why not just declare public health emergencies in these cities and ban guns outright? Gun violence is clearly a public health crisis, and public health officials have broad authority under such conditions. Unfortunately, this won’t happen. The gun culture in American is as deeply rooted as is systemic racism, and constitutionalists wouldn’t allow it. Gun violence is another epidemic that needs to be tackled, but that’s an issue for another day.   
​
Mass gatherings of people, regardless of how righteous the cause, increases the risk of spreading COVID-19. As we have seen, many people in public health feel that getting the message out about systemic racism is worth the risk. The early restrictions put in place to stop the spread of COVID-19 were backed up by science. It appears that by allowing Black Lives Matter protests to continue, science has taken a backseat to political considerations. I’m afraid that many public health officials have undermined their credibility by messaging that certain behaviors can be sanctioned if the cause is just. Public health should be above politics.  You may feel that public health officials are justified in favoring the Black Lives Matter protests. That’s for you, and perhaps the courts to decide. But what is clear, is that the partisan divide over the coronavirus response has widened. Messaging about actions to defeat the virus has become more confused, and trust in the Public Health System may have been diminished. This certainly doesn’t help at a time when a united, clear, and coherent plan to deal with the pandemic is needed. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over. I just hope that the public continues to listen to and heed the advice of our public health experts.
 
If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: [email protected].
​
Thanks,
Armchair American