If someone calls for protests to be illegal in one case and not the other then that’s a double standard and not such a great argument. (There are some subtle differences here, though: The situation a month ago was materially different – both in terms of the epidemiological picture as well as in terms of new scientific evidence about the relative dangers of being inside and outside – so it is possible for someone to argue for a difference on that basis, though I do acknowledge that’s a very shaky one.)

What’s happening here, though is that people judge the content of the protests: The content of the protests against the restrictions was irrational trash, so engaging in them is irresponsible stupidity. That’s a value judgement and it is perfectly valid to arrive at different conclusions with such a value judgement.

What do you think the definition of a 'double standard' is? You know, applying a different standard to the same behaviour (protests).

>Circumstances and outcomes vary, a form of 'neutrality' that ignores that fundamentally isn't a useful metric.

Sure. And it's still a double-standard. You just associate the phrase 'double-standard' as a negative and you don't like to apply something negative to behaviour you approve of.

Judge not that ye be not judged.

>Circumstances and outcomes vary, a form of 'neutrality' that ignores that fundamentally isn't a useful metric

Perhaps not useful to you and your cause.