"Int their infinite wisdom, "leaders" and "health professionals" have declared that 12 non-protesters are equally as "deadly" as 100 protesters. Makes total sense."
Well, that's not really what they're saying or implying.... it's a strawman. Your argument is sound without resorting to intellectual dishonesty IMO. That's stooping to their level.
I do think protests should be less limited than social gatherings. Social gatherings, while important, can be delayed. Protest can't, as it is one of our only means of addressing grievances, of which there are many. We should be protesting the lockdown, the social engineering, the bailouts, the corruption, the cashless society, the fraud of MSM and medical journals, etc etc. We should also protest the 100 people limit, as it is unconstitutional and not based in any science or logic.
How is the comparison 12 to 100 a straw man?
I mean I don't think anybody is actually declaring 12 non-protesters are as deadly as 100 protesters. Unless somebody actually said that (link?) then you're guessing at best. It's an easy to defeat position, a strawman. Like you said very sarcastically and dismissively, "makes total sense".
I'm not implying anything other than to point out the strawman. I don't disagree with your post. Like I said, your argument doesn't need to reach. But if someone actually is saying that "12X are as deadly as 100Y", please link me so I can join you in mocking them :p