I found this on another site a visit. It's not "facts" just someone who kind of watches the numbers as a hobby and thinks it's going to be hard to visualize a spike (if there is one) based on all of the various locations, young age of protesters, and so on. It makes a little bit of sense to me as I read it although some of it is a little off. But I think it's correct in that it's going to be hard to see a concentrate spike in any one place. Now if contract tracing were well established, we could see how much tied back to the protests.
Who dies from COVID? Old people. And who is protesting? NOT old people.
Who gets SICK from COVID? All people. But few young show symptoms.
Who gets TESTED from COVID? Generally people with symptoms.
How many get tested? As many and as fast as the tests allow...
In other words - the only spike you could possibly see is an increase in positive tests, matching the rate of testing, which is already rising at a pretty good clip. About 20,000 a day positive confirmed tests we add. Lots more aren't positive. It means we test 50K a day or 200K a day or .. .A LOT.
To make that number move - much - you'd have to administer lots and lots more tests - that ain't gonna happen. But if it did - and 100,000 YOUNG people just got infected - how many show symptoms and get tested? Few.
A spike at all would appear in the number of dead vulnerable relatives to these young people, a month or two from now. Kids don't care if they're sick. But they just killed gramma to throw some bricks through a window. How many "vulnerable" people will die as a result? No idea. But even if it were 1000, they would not be on the same day, and we're still burying 700-1100 EVERY day, so it will be a hard spike to notice, in any event.