Yes and no. I agree that many of us had reached the conclusion previously, but what made it different is that it gave people permission to break the social compact that "we are all in this together" because clearly we weren't. The antilockdown protests, for example, were received with widespread condemnation. The argument for the Floyd protests was that this was important since police brutality was costing lives particularly against a disadvantage class. But the problem was that many people had things which were also import that they were being asked to sacrifice: funerals, saying goodbye to a loved one, businesses built over a life time, the education of their kids, worship, mental well being, weddings. From there it spirals out....the 20 year old guy who doesn't want to go celibate for a year, going to see grandma for what might be her last thanksgiving, the Dangie Bros' kegger to celebrate their graduation next door to me. Remember at the time the big argument was well if they can go and protest why can't I go worship my God at church?
It would have been impossible in the US anyway to suppress the protests. They are protected by the first amendment. Would have required a President to likely suspend the Constitution, to tell SCOTUS to go stuff it, and to then suppress the resulting backlash.
Do us all a favor. When this is all over, don't write a history of it.