That's my conclusion as well. I understand other people evaluating it differently though. Including non-insane people making legitimate good faith evaluations.

Again, personally I'm 100% on board with you, beating an ex in front of your shared son is worse in my book. That said, here's my good faith argument for why thats not an objectively true judgement (although I understand this will likely be downvoted to hell too).

https://www.brown.edu/academics/science-and-technology-studies/framework-making-ethical-decisions summarizes some ethical frameworks that have had varying popularity but have generally been around hundreds of years.

Some are concerned with only final outcomes (famously utilitarianism, maybe Rodgers ends up worse here), some with the action itself regardless of eventual consequences (or only based on reasonably expected consequences), some with intent (under such a system Rodgers might not have done anything wrong at all if he really believes he was immune and he didn't believe he was putting people at risk). The paper focuses on "western" ethical frameworks, but I imagine some asian cultures would put an even higher emphasis on duty to family specifically (in this case making Rodgers actions less bad and Stacy's worse).

If it gets out that Aaron Rodgers triggered an outbreak that resulted in covid infections in 10 elderly people who thought they were safe around him, and 3 of them die, whats the evaluation then? A utilitarian framework would suggest killing 3 innocent people is "clearly" worse than than beating 1 who recovered. A framework which emphasizes duty to family over duty to humans in general might still consider Stacy's actions "clearly" worse even if Rodgers does kill 3 people. If there's the potential for this outcome (regardless of whether it occured), some frameworks will penalize Rodgers for that: his actions certainly had a higher upper bound on harm than Stacy.

A framework which considers intent might consider Rodgers worse (because of premeditation and ongoing deception, vs. a potential "roid rage" situation for stacy without explicit intent, TBH didn't read much about the context for the beating), or it might consider him absolved completely (he didn't intend to hurt anyone, Stacy clearly intended to hurt his ex.)

All of that's without getting into the more "edgy" ethical frameworks like moral nihilism (nothing matters, do what you want) or egoism (your only duty is to yourself, whats right or wrong is based on whats better for you alone), etc.