What you are saying make no sense. The protesters you talk about were against lockdown. it's valid to say they endanger public health if you believe shutdown is protecting public health.

> For people that are against the shutdown, this reaffirms the purely political nature of the policy

What does that mean? What is the nature of the policy and how is it purely political? (Obviously any policy is political, because it's a choice effecting the population)

Large public gatherings are either dangerous or they are not. The current gatherings are not being framed as dangerous, whereas the former were. The only difference between them is the reason for them. Do the math.

That would be arguing the goal of the protesters endangered public health. They were actually arguing that the physical act of protesting itself was a public health danger, which is a different thing entirely.

It's clear by now that many of the so-called "experts" are ideologically driven. For instance the highly influential Professor Ferguson told governments around the world they needed drastic lockdowns, which he then repeatedly violated himself to sleep with his left-wing activist girlfriend.

One of the other 50 "experts" in the UK government's advisory group (SAGE) is not only a left-wing political activist who made huge donations to Labour but is actually a life long member of the Communist Party. That's totally absurd given the tiny membership it has, but somehow the government managed to recruit a literal communist to make policy.

Lockdowns have been designed by these people and are a nearly pure implementation of hard-left policies, of the sort normally only found in communist states. Censorship is rife, a pass is required to go outside, protest is banned, the private sector is being destroyed. Maybe it shouldn't be a big surprise when you look at who's been coming up with them.