its a similar effect on fivethirtyeight, they were closely monitoring covid with most articles, then switched to 'protests good, what is covid-19?' as the 'justified' protests have taken place
You cannot have both.
So either those out and about without masks, or protesting the lockdown, etc. AND the current protests are justified as COVID isn't actually a real concern, OR both sets of protests are unjustified because a lack of concern for COVID is in essence negligent homicide, and the current consort should be labelled as the previous.
What you cannot say is that the first set of actions were unjustified but the second justified, whilst in the midst of the same conditions with the same virus making its way through our people. You may try to insert a "but" in there somewhere, but that will be merely a reflection of your political biases or adherence to the narrative of your chosen publication.
Yes, obviously the novel coronavirus is still here, and it is still a huge concern. This doesn't mean that people who are fed up with generations of police brutality and have taken to the streets to pressure their local leaders to put an end to it are somehow being hypocrites. They are simply demonstrating that ending police brutality is a much more important issue, one they are willing to risk their own health for (not just from the virus but also from tear gas, rubber bullets, pepper sprays, LRADs and more).
At the end of the day, humans are complex and everyone's calculus is different. I have friends who want to protest but have decided not to because they are immuno-compromised. I also have friends who have gone to the protests, and have since been self-quarantining (including calling in sick if their employers have called people back to the office). I also know people, like you, who think protesters are being irresponsible since packed crowds will no doubt intensify the pandemic.
Instead of judging these groups, we should strive to understand where they are coming from and why they may have made those choices, based on sets of circumstances and experiences that will be unique for everyone.
Just to be clear, I didn't state my position above. I support both sets of protests, and believe both to be justified. That's not something I want to derail the thread with though, so was merely pointing out the approach to logical consistency in my first post.
Of course, the belief in the importance or validity even of the causes of either protest can vary between people, so various people may support none, one or both protests, according to their particular beliefs. I wouldn't call any of these people irrational (though of course I have my own beliefs and only agree with one of these positions).
The law has to be blind to different ideas being expressed; they are all valid, with reasonable limitations. And so it was: despite being overwhelmingly unpopular, antilockdown protests were generally carried out unimpeded.
The popular perception isn't bound to be equitable in this way, nor should it be, nor is it obliged to be uniform.
It is totally valid to carry the opinion that protesting lock downs is less legitimate than protesting police violence. There is no contradiction or injustice here.
Somebody that holds this opinion might argue that while both sets of protestors are willingly putting themselves at risk, one was campaigning for an action that would put others who didn't consent at greater risk and the other is campaigning for action that would protect people. That seems very consistent to me.