To me, that seems like fairly precise language. They’re saying they do not believe the risk level is sufficiently high to condemn the gatherings. It doesn’t seem much different than saying grocery store visits are not condemned as risky, while music store visits are condemned as risky. The virus doesn’t care about what you’re shopping for either, it’s just that shopping for food is more important (by their estimation) than shopping for some vinyl.
That, and it's a healthy dose of pragmatism. If nobody is going to comply with your advice, you're doing more harm than good.
You can realistically tell people to shop for vinyl from the comfort of their couch, and they might do that.
Given the level of outrage, there were going to be large groups of protests across the country either way, but they were successfully convinced to wear masks, use hand sanitizer and spread out where they can. At least here, every time the mayor talks she urges people who went to protests to get tested.
"They’re saying they do not believe the risk level is sufficiently high to condemn the gatherings."
But that's obviously nonsense, given that not all of the participants wear masks, distance cannot be kept, they stay at the same location for a longer time and some are chanting/yelling.
It it nonsense though? If that's true it sounds like there was no need for anyone to weigh in at all; it was evidently obvious that these protests must be condemned. Do you believe that's the case?
