Why didn't New York City protests lead to the same results?
That's one particular location, that had relatively small amounts of participants compared to that of Houston, Miami-Dade, and that already had a high percentage of people who had contracted the virus and then recovered.
NYC had 5,000 participants, Houston had 60,000...Florida had numerous ranging from 500 to 3,000 all over the state.
California had strict lockdown policies, and just had to re-lockdown today as a result of high levels of new infections.
Colorado opened early, and didn't have to...Colorado's governor reopened around the same time as Georgia, Florida, and Texas...and didn't get nearly as much flak for it...I suspect it's due to the (D) after the name instead of the (R)...just a hunch.
All that aside, if the narrative is that the outdoor protests (involving tens of thousands of people) aren't the main culprit, that means that outdoor gatherings aren't a major point of concern...which means that governors had no right to shut down parks and beaches, yes?
They can't have it both ways on this one. If tens of thousand of people, gathering outdoors in close proximity, isn't an issue for protests, then it isn't an issue for some people who want to meet up with some friends on the beach for a picnic.
Let's be consistent here...
If 60,000 people lined up shoulder to shoulder for an anti-police protest supposedly isn't "a cause of spreading", then me meeting my brother at a restaurant, for outdoor dining (at a table 6 feet away from everyone else), being served by a wait staff wearing masks and gloves, isn't a risk factor either.
This partisan nonsense is getting to be a bit frustrating...
According to CNN, if someone has a "spit in each other's mouth" party in the name of "holding police accountable", that's not a major cause of concern, but if someone wants to eat in a restaurant, socially distanced from everyone else, "they're part of the problem" is logically absurd.