You REALLY REALLY do not understand causal relationships, do you?
Correlation is not causation, non-causal relationship: People eat more ice cream in the summer. There are more deaths by drowning in the summer. These are correlated, yet eating ice cream does not cause people to drown. The correlation is that they both increase in summer.
Correlation is causation, causal relationship: Respiratory diseases spread among people in close proximity breathing each other's breath. During BLM riots, people were in close proximity, breathing each other's breath. Therefore, the spread of respiratory illness (Covid) is directly caused by rioters being in close proximity to each other.
Yes, I get it. Science has so many nuances that make it difficult to understand. But you can at least try, can't you?
You yourself said, and I quote verbatim by cut-and-paste
We know that social distancing is necessary to minimize exposure to an infected person who is actively shedding virus
followed by
By June 2, public health authorities were expressing (justifiable) concern about protestors spreading Covid. The subsequent rise in Covid cases is, therefore, directly attributable to the BLM riots, based on the events and the known mechanism of infection.
You know what's missing?
Any hard proof that the people infected were the same people as attended the riots.
Any information about the number of people at the riots who were carrying the virus *and* shedding sufficient quantities of the virus to infect others *and* proof that they came close enough to others that the transmission occurred *and* proof that those in proximity to the (hypothesized but not proven!) infected, were themselves vulnerable to the virus that their exposure would lead to infection.
You got an epidemiological "plausible".
Further, you admit your spreadsheet doesn't even capture case data at as broad a level of granularity as zip code.
But don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining and pretend that this is proof, instead of just correlation.
Again your double standard for when you allow the conflation of definitions and invalid conclusions (a long a they advance the narrative), juxtaposed with pretending to be rigorous towards anyband all mentions of jab injuries, is a staggering case of intellectual dishonesty.
One which would get any real scientists thrown out on their ear.
Incidentally, you never supplied your spreadsheet.
And you never proved the "cases" were verified by a reliable method, we only have the lying CDC's numbers.
Dingbat.