[akiddoc]

I am unclear what the connection between weddings and protests are.

The comment seems intended to sidetrack the discussion to protests. The same strategy as the president.

Well, how about these "connections"?

Weddings are often held outside, especially this time of year [look at the spot just south of Crystal Springs Golf course on I-280, for example].  So are protests.
Weddings can be set up with all chairs six feet apart, to maintain social distancing -- indeed, a lot better social distancing than happens at protests.
Wedding guests can be given [and required to wear] face coverings -- in fact, those could be the wedding novelty item, with the names of the couple and the date adorning the front of the face covering -- and compliance would probably be higher than at most protests.
Wedding guests often come in pairs or families -- which, of course, could be separated to maintain social distancing among different "social bubbles" in a manner much more likely to avoid infection than at disorganized protests made up of randomly assembled protesters.

And, as we all know, many medical professionals as well as posters to this Board went to considerable lengths to suggest that there was little, if any, evidence that the protests of several weeks ago actually resulted in any measurable spike in the virus, so, in light of all of these "connections" [and likely others that I haven't thought of], it would seem the conclusion that could be drawn is that weddings are no more -- and, in fact, are likely less of a risk than those other gatherings [i.e., large protests] that people seemed to believe were no real problem.

Not really a "sidetrack" at all. 

Ironically, the only intended sidetrack I saw was making a reference to the president, who had absolutely NOTHING to do with the subject of the thread, the nature or risk of gatherings, the difficulties being endured by those with scheduled weddings, or pretty much anything at all... except to the extent that some folks seem to believe that any and every discussion about any and every topic is an appropriate basis upon which to take a shot at the president.  You know, the folks who are intent on politicizing everything about the pandemic.

An outdoor wedding would be safer than indoors. But prolonged exposure side by side with no masks would be a negative, and a reception with the usual behavior of eating and talking side by side would be another negative. How likely is it that guests at a wedding are going to keep their distance? And wear masks? Protesting in a packed group is also a big negative. Although the vast majority of protests I've seen on video in my city show close to 100% wearing masks and some pretty good distancing. 

If I was getting married, I would either put it off for a year (maybe two) or Zoom it. So many guests at weddings are older in age and pretty vulnerable. Inviting them to your wedding right now does seem very selfish.

[akiddoc]

I am unclear what the connection between weddings and protests are.

The comment seems intended to sidetrack the discussion to protests. The same strategy as the president.

Well, how about these "connections"?

Weddings are often held outside, especially this time of year [look at the spot just south of Crystal Springs Golf course on I-280, for example].  So are protests.
Weddings can be set up with all chairs six feet apart, to maintain social distancing -- indeed, a lot better social distancing than happens at protests.
Wedding guests can be given [and required to wear] face coverings -- in fact, those could be the wedding novelty item, with the names of the couple and the date adorning the front of the face covering -- and compliance would probably be higher than at most protests.
Wedding guests often come in pairs or families -- which, of course, could be separated to maintain social distancing among different "social bubbles" in a manner much more likely to avoid infection than at disorganized protests made up of randomly assembled protesters.

And, as we all know, many medical professionals as well as posters to this Board went to considerable lengths to suggest that there was little, if any, evidence that the protests of several weeks ago actually resulted in any measurable spike in the virus, so, in light of all of these "connections" [and likely others that I haven't thought of], it would seem the conclusion that could be drawn is that weddings are no more -- and, in fact, are likely less of a risk than those other gatherings [i.e., large protests] that people seemed to believe were no real problem.

Not really a "sidetrack" at all. 

Ironically, the only intended sidetrack I saw was making a reference to the president, who had absolutely NOTHING to do with the subject of the thread, the nature or risk of gatherings, the difficulties being endured by those with scheduled weddings, or pretty much anything at all... except to the extent that some folks seem to believe that any and every discussion about any and every topic is an appropriate basis upon which to take a shot at the president.  You know, the folks who are intent on politicizing everything about the pandemic.

An outdoor wedding would be safer than indoors. But prolonged exposure side by side with no masks would be a negative, and a reception with the usual behavior of eating and talking side by side would be another negative. How likely is it that guests at a wedding are going to keep their distance? And wear masks? Protesting in a packed group is also a big negative. Although the vast majority of protests I've seen on video in my city show close to 100% wearing masks and some pretty good distancing. 

If I was getting married, I would either put it off for a year (maybe two) or Zoom it. So many guests at weddings are older in age and pretty vulnerable. Inviting them to your wedding right now does seem very selfish.