If someone is a sedeprivationist, they cannot be a sedevacantist, and vice versa, no?

Sedeprivationists and sedevacantists agree that the Holy See is vacant. But, for the sedeprivationist, THE DEFINITIVE solution to the crisis is that the Vatican 2 "material popes" must convert to Catholicism from their Vatican 2 heresies. The sedevacantist, on the other hand, believes something else, that there must be an imperfect general council of bishops to elect a pope (conclavism?), or a miraculous divine intervention of God will elect a pope, or there will be no more popes but the end of the world is soon coming.

If a sedevacantist "agrees with" the sedeprivationist's view, they cease to be a sedevacantist and become a sedeprivationist.

Let's put it this way: the sedeprivationist should be praying and working towards getting Vatican 2 "material popes" to become Catholic. However, if this somehow happened, the sedeprivationist would then recognize those "popes" as both "material and formal popes" - actual popes. HOWEVER, a sedevacantist would NOT accept such a "pope" as a pope, or again, they would be a sedeprivationist and not a sedevacantist. This would be a schism. The sedevacantists would continue to believe that the Holy See is vacant.

The question of course is: is there not a schism currently between sedeprivationists and sedevacantists?

Has anything more been written on this "theory" of sedeprivationism, anyone tried to debunk it? Alternatively, have any sedeprivationists shown sedevacantism to be impossible or untenable?

I think there are other important considerations here, like that sedeprivationism is not just a "theory" but is a belief that prevents a conclave from happening. It's a crypto-SSPX position, still clinging on to the Vatican 2 heretical group but resisting it. Just like the placebo effect, where a person might take a sugar pill believing it helps them, and it physically helps them because of the belief. Beliefs have consequences in how we act, and sedeprivationism leads people away from recognizing a valid conclave if one has already existed, or attempting to convene one.

Anyone have any constructive thoughts along these lines?

pickoverthecliff...if serious about his/her post here, I doubt it.  When I read it sounds like he/she is trying to make a serious crisis into something comical.  

Anyone who actually thinks along those lines as he described would be guilty of the sin of Pride, because what they are saying is, if I don't understand fully how God will end this crisis then it must be a schism of sort.  

I know of no one who embraces the sedevacantist position who wastes their time by sitting around and trying to figure out or claim to know the mind of God.  We pray for a Pope to unite us all, we try our best to Keep the Faith, we pray for each other, and do as the Bible says, "Watch and Pray."

We believe the Pope must be Catholic.

We believe a doubtful Pope can not be a Pope.

We believe that God will end this crisis and the reign of Mary will be blessed upon the entire earth.

We do not pretend or claim to know how, when and if God will intercede, we just know He will.