So far I have only found one article in a left wing publication which acknowledges and questions the left's virus hypocrisy following the outbreak of demonstrations over the death of George Floyd.
We often accuse the right of distorting science. But the left changed the coronavirus narrative overnight | Thomas Chatterton Williams
It is currently the number two most-read article on the Guardian, but good luck finding it on the main page or even in the listings on the Opinion page. The article is, however, far from perfect.
It is not clear where the author even stands on the matter. At one point he writes "Catalyzed by the spectacle of Floyd’s reprehensible death, it is clear that the emergency in Minneapolis passes my own and many people’s threshold for justifying the risk of contagion." So we infer that he is for the demonstrations in defiance of previous advice to shelter-in-place. In the final paragraph, however, he writes
However, there is one inconvenient truth that cannot be disputed: more black Americans have been killed by three months of coronavirus than the number who have been killed by cops and vigilantes since the turn of the millennium. We may or may not be willing to accept that brutal calculus, but we are obligated, at the very least, to be honest."
There is also this
Yet even as the coronavirus lockdown threw 40 million Americans out of work – including Floyd himself – many progressives accepted this calamity, sometimes with stunning blitheness, as the necessary cost of guarding against Covid-19.
He writes this weaselly in the passive voice, but lockdowns in the US were almost universally demanded by leftists, not something foisted upon them by their beastly opponents that they acquiesced to.
He refers to the situation in Minneapolis as an "emergency". But in what sense is it an emergency? Because George Floyd was murdered by a white police officer? He has been removed from the police force and arraigned on criminal charges of murder. The only "emergency" then is the protest in response to the killing, but if this is the emergency, it is not calmed by doing the same thing everywhere else. I think the actual emergency is merely the closing window of opportunity for taking advantage of the unrest for political gain.
There is also this from Politico, but this outlet has a more neutral standpoint (and the article is referenced in the Guardian opinion piece above).
Suddenly, Public Health Officials Say Social Justice Matters More Than Social Distance
From the Politico article:
“We should always evaluate the risks and benefits of efforts to control the virus,” Jennifer Nuzzo, a Johns Hopkins epidemiologist,
tweeted on Tuesday. “In this moment the public health risks of not protesting to demand an end to systemic racism greatly exceed the harms of the virus.”
Is this a scientific opinion backed by a quantitative argument? Or is she just making things up to attempt to square her political zeal with her position as a scientist? Why "in this moment"? Going by what the BLM movement is saying, the issue is long-standing and structural. They even say that what happened to George Floyd is not uncommon, so there is no immediate rational impetus for the demonstrations amidst an ongoing viral epidemic. Was Jennifer Nuzzo encouraging people to go out and "protest to demand an end to systemic racism" at the beginning of last month? Was she doing so six months ago? I don't know, but I doubt it. Was the systemic racism situation any better at those times? I also don't think so.
It seems that there are no sane and rational people remaining among the elites of the western world. Having proven themselves to be growing increasingly frivolous before the epidemic, the virus seems to have driven them completely around the bend.