What has been alleged is that if fewer people are exposed to the virus, fewer people will get sick and if fewer people get sick then fewer people will die.
I suppose you can chose to call that an allegation.
Disease has real risks; flu and other diseases kill thousands each year. The question is whether there is some extraordinary risk associated with people gathering in a widely spaced group outside that requires canceling their first amendment rights to peacefully assemble, freedom of speech, and to seek redress of grievances.
Is there any evidence that anyone has ever been infected as a result of outdoor protests? Is the ban on protests just an irrational knee-jerk reaction?
Or worse yet, is it an excuse for the governor to shut up people who have opposing views?
Read the article. A change in the weather, and the exhaustion of being indoors, drew more people outside YESTERDAY. That has had no effect on the virus totals prior to today.
Yes, 5% is about right based on confirmed cases based on tests for presence of the virus. Recent random antibody testing shows infection rates that are 10 to 100 higher than the confirmed cases would indicate. For example here is study in New York.
Based on the antibody tests, the death rate is about .5% in New York City.
California has about .1% fatality rate based antibody testing. That is similar to the death rate of seasonal flu. If California can suspend civil rights based on the current virus, logically they can suspend civil rights continuously based on flu and other diseases even if the coronavirus eventually disappears.
Here are links to antibody results in Los Angeles and the Bay area that show much higher infection rates: