An Example: Covid-19: One of the Great Dividers

In many posts I will lean toward the less popular or less reported side as a way to get all of us to explore the truth and understand each other. I will take a debate strategy and submit reasons as to why the opposite opinion of the popular one may have merit.

The number of deaths:

It is August, 2020, Reported Covid deaths are reported at over 175,000. Some highly question this number.

Those who question it point to several factors. The primary factor is hospitals need money. People are not getting healthcare especially during SIP which jeopardizes their health but also reduces the income of hospitals. If you look at the parking lots of hospitals they are near empty. Hospitals are offered an incentive to treat COVID-19. They receive an extra $19,000 for treating a COVID patient and $39,000 if they are put on a ventilator. People who work at hospitals have tried to report that their hospital is listing anyone who dies and was exposed to, or in some cases is suspected to have been exposed to the virus, as a COVID related death. The ( I believe her title is) the Head of Pennsylvania's Public Health Organization reported in her state that even if someone is on Hospice with 48 hours to live and they suspect the patient has been exposed, it is listed as Covid related. Of course main stream media did not fully report this and it was taken down from social media. This limiting of exposure without a full examination only served to increase suspicions by many (more on why some distrust the CDC and WHO later in this post). Anecdotally many healthcare providers have expressed that this practice is wide spread. Recently I was listening to the radio as I was driving. It was being reported that a new case of COVID death had happened that day in the local county, The report ended explaining research would be done in the next few days to see if the person had even been exposed to COVID,

Within the last couple of days the CDC reported that only 6% all COVID-19 deaths were do solely to COVID ( that does NOT mean the virus has only caused 6% of reported deaths. It does illustrate the measurement of the impact of COVID on death rates is complicated) . They also recently admitted that there may be some financial incentive for hospitals to misreport COVID deaths.

There has been no third party investigation into these allegations to determine to what degree if at all, they hold truth.

A person purported to be a college professor of statistics posted an analysis. He looked at reported deaths in the US prior to COVID and then extrapolated them out. He then looked at the actually reported deaths. The difference between his extrapolated numbers and the actual numbers should be, in theory, COVID deaths. His findings were that reported COVID deaths were 2.5 times what his numbers indicated. He also did the same for heart attacks and cancer related deaths and his research indicated the reported cases were less that his projections. This would imply that both heart related and cancer related deaths were being reported as COVID deaths. I/we have no way of determining if he was in fact who he said he was or if his research was in any way valid. Unfortunately, rather than dispute his claims, analyze his research and show the flaws, or better yet have a reputable person do the analyze to see if it couds be replicated, his report was taken off social media.

The entire method of reporting COVID deaths seems to me to be fraught with misrepresentations and opportunities to misreporting and abuse. If someone is dying and contacts COVID, and if it is felt COVID hastened their death or played a role in it, it is to be reported as COVID. Did it hasten the death by minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years? This seems way to subjective to place confidence in the number. As someone who recently lost both my parents, any remaining time in one's life is precious. But in this case it would be nice to know what role COVID played in the death. We are forming public policy and in part determining our political future (Some would say our very structure of government) on these numbers. Where is the analysis of what comorbidity plays a greater role, and to what degree it was felt COVID played?

Question: Would you like to see a reputable third party conduct an anonymous ( to protect those who answer) poll of those who determine the cause of death on the death certificate as to what degree, if any the reported number of COVID deaths might be misleading?

Not interested at all, the numbers are accurate _____

Some interest but by and large I accept the numbers as they are stated ____

Interested, I think it would help the debate _____

It should have been done long ago _____

Question: Would you like to see a statistical analysis of Covid reported deaths as well as heart or cancer related reported deaths?

Not interested at all, the number are accurate _____

Some interest but by and large I accept the numbers as they are stated ____

Interested, I think it would help the debate _____

It should have been done long ago _____

Question: Would you like to have a breakdown of the degree to which COVID played a role in comorbidity deaths?

Not interested at all, the number are accurate _____

Some interest but by and large I accept the numbers as they are stated ____

Interested, I think it would help the debate _____

It should have been done long ago _____

Question: Do you think it would be nice to have these answers especially as they relate to how we view our political future ( It is playing a major role in the attempts to get more voters)?

Not interested at all, the number are accurate _____

Some interest but by and large I accept the numbers as they are stated ____

Interested, I think it would help the debate _____

It should have been done long ago _____

Question: Can you see why some people might question the numbers?

No, The numbers are the numbers and no one should question them _____

Maybe a little but I still trust the numbers as they are stated______

Yes, I don't agree the numbers are off, but I can see why some would question_____

Yes _____

Political leverage:

Many (I am one of them) feel that the larger an organization and the closer it is to a monopoly or semi-monopoly, the more chance politics can play a role in its activities. With power comes the opportunity for abuse.

I also think that politicians will use what such organizations say to their advantage. The main way you can tell if this is happening is when an organization makes a change to what they have said in the past; observe how the politicians reacts. As an example the left and especially Pelosi have been saying for months we should listen to the CDC, WHO and FDA as they are the experts. We should rely on science over emotions. Many have labeled those who question what these organizations have to say as not caring about people or in some cases relying on self-interest over what is right. Those who suggested that some of what was being said by these institutions were politically motivated are met with disgust. It was said these institutions were independent and cared only about the people. Being someone who cared about people and lives was tied to accepting what these institution told us. It became a major point of difference between the left and the right, the good and the bad. Then this week the CDC said that people who had the virus but were asymptomatic did not need to be tested. WHO suggested that asymptomatic people were not contagious ( they backtracked the next day and explained that asymptomatic was different from pre-symptomatic ). Pelosi went on camera and shamed them and many liberals along with her are saying these institutions recent statements are politically based. They claimed the same for the FDA's rush to approve a vaccine. There seems to me to be some hypocrisy here that makes me very skeptical.

In the media I see events being used for political purposes. People magazine had a small half page insert about the death of Herman Cain, a framer black presidential candidate. He died of COVID complications. In the article the writer felt compelled to say he died two months after attending a Trump rally and was seen not wearing a mask. He then when on to say it was not known where Cain contacted the virus or, I believe, how long he had it. Ask yourself why the writer felt the need to bring up he had attended a Trump rally. Having a mask on or not would in no way implicate he caught it at the Trump rally ( mask only protect others and not the wearer). We have no way of knowing if he had the virus when he attended. We do not know if he sneezed or coughed on anyone within social distancing. We do not know if anyone else who attended caught the virus. I heard a news broadcast a couple months ago where the reporter felt she had to report that Trump had a small meeting of 50 people who met indoors and not everyone wore a mask. at the same time main stream media seems to underplay protester gatherings and the risk of COVID. I heard nothing about groups meeting at the MTV awards show without isolation after travel. I have heard a great deal about how Trump reacted too slowly but nothing about the rapid production of ventilators except from him. I hear no praise about the fast track for a treatment. I hear nothing about how the CDC and WHO at first did not realize how the virus spread and did not recommend masks. I heard the WHO and many others at first condemn China for how it initially handled the flow of information and now WHO is praising them. I see high tech social medal companies who favor democrats taking down posts that are counter to the main stream media narrative and even took down a short video about Trump. I wonder if all the focus on masks is because they are visible. I heard Pelosi say after the first support plan was agreed to that 'they" were about business while she and the democrats are all about people instead of: There is a short term need for people to have cash and a long term need to keep business afloat so they could have jobs and income when things got better and how they all worked together to find a balance. I heard how SIP was about lives versus business and nothing about about the correlation between suicides and unemployment rates, million of people not getting medical treatments, kids not eating healthy, family stress, reduced education funds, and the harm to our delicate supply chain for goods and services. Even WHO reported that 3 more months of SIP would damage the supply chain of medical products and drugs that would result in one million additional deaths around the world. I see politicians saying wearing masks is a show of respect for others but not wearing them when they think the cameras are off. We know a large percentage of the deaths have occurred in nursing home or patients transferred from hospitals to nursing homes. We know some states had a policy of pushing people recovering from hospitals back into nursing homes. The six states with the largest number of deaths all did this. They were all run by liberal governors yet we hear very little about this in main stream media and even praise some of those same governors for their fight against the virus. What has me most curious is the fact that when an investigating committee asked NY state (one of the six states) to produce records on its nursing homes, they responded that could not do so until shortly after the election as they could not find them. The whole follow the science and listen to the experts seems to be more only listen to the scientists and experts I tell you to listen to ( I cite the case on Ontario nurses against hospitals that forced the to wear masks when they refused flue vaccinations:

ONA's well-regarded expert witnesses, including Toronto infection control expert Dr. Michael Gardam, Quebec epidemiologist Dr. Gaston De Serres, and Dr. Lisa Brosseau, an American expert on masks, testified that there was insufficient evidence to support the St. Michael's policy and no evidence that forcing healthy nurses to wear masks during the influenza season did anything to prevent transmission of influenza in hospitals. They further testified that nurses who have no symptoms are unlikely to be a real source of transmission and that it was not logical to force healthy unvaccinated nurses to mask. Arbitrator Kaplan accepted this expert evidence. In contrast, he noted the only fair words to describe the hospital's evidence in support of masking are "insufficient, inadequate and completely unpersuasive."

I hear people on the right saying the virus is a hoax and not realizing how contagious it is and how their carelessness could impact others. They seem focused on resisting control and not hearing the dangers.

Instead of a sharing of information and a dynamic dialog I hear monologue positioning, us versus them, good guy versus bad guy. The focus at times seems to be more about political positioning than it does about keeping people safe and balancing all the complex factors.

I am not saying there diffidently is large scale politicization of the virus. It is a dangerous vicious thing. What I am saying is that if someone were to make it political, here might be some things they would do:

1) Control the flow of information

2) Create as much fear as possible and make the numbers as bad as possible

3) Tell people what to think, positioning one thought as being that of a good good and the other evil

4) Promote those whose opinion carries weight with the masses when they agree with theirs and demonize them when they do not

5) Demonize the opposition and blame them for everything with no acknowledgement of what they have done that has helped.

6) Position themselves as the good side in a black and white scenario

7) Utilize things that are visible in daily life (IE: Masks) as a sign of good versus bad

8) Avoid or silence any questions that are against their narrative

Question: Do see any evidence of the virus being used for political leverage: Us versus them, good versus bad?

Not at all _____

Maybe a little ____

Yes ___

Questions: Do see all the issues around the virus being black and white?

Yes ____

There is some grey ____

There is a lot of grey ____

Question: Do you think if we loved one another and were kind to one another versus judging and affixing blame we would get through this pandemic and actually find a silver lining?

How can we do this when the other side is so wrong ____

It's not that bad ____

Yes ____

Question: The pandemic is bad and has put such negative energy in the world. Does the politicization of it create more negative energy?

Stop with the weird stuff_____

Maybe if you believe in such things _____

Yes ___

The recent spike in new infections:

Let's look at something that is a currently a very hot topic: The recent increase in the number of new COVID-19 cases.

Many people see the main reason for this rise as the softening of restrictions including the wearing of masks. Some are even suggesting we need to go back to SIP.

Question: To what degree do you think the number of new cases is due to a relaxing of the restrictions?

90 to 100% ____

80 to 90% ____

60 to 80% ____

40 to 60% ____

20 to 40% ____

10 to 20% ____

Under 10% _____

On what did you base your answer?

But others have questions such as:

1) The increase in testing. If you double or triple the number of tests it makes sense you will have more positives, especially in asymptomatic cases. If true you don't actually have more cases but are simply recognizing a higher percentage of existing cases that were missed when testing was lower.

The fact that deaths are level is seen as support for this reasoning for more reported cases versus more actual cases. Of course there is also better treatment and earlier diagnosis as a reason for deaths rates leveling.

Question: Do you think that the increase in testing is a factor in the increase in reported new cases?

90 to 100% ____

80 to 90% ____

60 to 80% ____

40 to 60% ____

20 to 40% ____

10 to 20% ____

Under 10% ____

2) There seems to be an issue with testing. Recently the NFL had a 77 positive new tests. After further testing they ALL turned out to be false positives. In California it was recently admitted that some cases had been double counted. Then it was announced that the cases in California were down once they increased restrictions only to find out that perhaps that was due to a back log of tests.

I personally know of four people who went to be tested, filled out the forms but three of them, after a long wait, left before being tested. Yet two of the three were latter notified they had tested positive. We also have heard of the doctors (This has since been taken off of social media) who sent in 10 tests that had simply been dipped in saline water to have the majority come back as positive.

The NY Times just released a report that up to 90% of positive cases should not be listed as new cases. The US has different testing methods than that of the rest of the world. Most of the rest of the world uses 30 x magnification cycles to test. The US goes up to 40 which means the viral load can be so low as to be non-contagious, or old dead viruses, and the rest of the world would not classify them as cases. Also there is one testing process that is vulnerable to having contaminated equipment that results in false positives.

Question: Do you feel that issues with testing and accounting are a factor in the reported number of new cases?

90 to 100% ____

80 to 90% ____

60 to 80% ____

40 to 60% ____

20 to 40% ____

10 to 20% ____

Under 10% _____

Is your answer from your auto pilot mind or your critical mind's analysis?

3) Others point out that the recent protests lead to more new cases as they meet five of the main criteria for danger; Large crowds, together for more than 15 minutes, talking loudly or exerted breathing, cases of not social distancing, and not everyone wearing a mask. Even the CDC said they fit the profile of dangerous situations although they left it to others to decide if they should be ban.

Question: Do you feel the nationwide protest have played a role in increased new cases.

90 to 100% ____

80 to 90% ____

60 to 80% ____

40 to 60% ____

20 to 40% ____

10 to 20% ____

Under 10% _____

These are but a few of the alternate reasons that take away from the argument that the recent rise in new COVID-19 cases are due almost exclusively to the softening of restrictions, opening of the economy and especially the wearing of masks . I encourage you to look at your answers again. Realize that the sum of the four areas can not exceed 100%. With each answer ask yourself why you give the answers you give. Is there a red scarf anywhere? Is there a reluctance to go against anything or group your self-image associates with? What biases influence your answers?

Finally, can you see why someone might disagree with the current narrative about the rise in new cases, or do you feel they just place a different value on human life?

I see no reason for their opinion ____

Maybe a little ____

Yes ___

Wearing a mask:

Masks have become one of the biggest dividers in our country. I big reason is because they are visible. Being visible makes them a great tool for dividing us.

As the number of new COVID-19 reported infections spikes in some areas (there is debate how much if at all it is spiking see post on Living in the Grey) the focus seems to be on the not wearing of cloth masks as the cause. Since masks first became mandated or recommend, those who resisted were labeled by many who were for wearing masks as having low morals or values. It was often said those who resisted placed the small inconvenience of wearing a mask over the lives those who might become infected. Many of those who resisted said it was based on a violation of their civil liberties and/or constitutional rights. All this, even though in March the same institutions that now say we should all wear cloth masks then said we should not and there was no proof they helped. Let’s explore how we got to where we are today and how we might come together.

First let me address my views on those who say the mandated wearing of masks violates their civil liberties and/or constitutional rights. From those opposed to masks I have spoken with, the issue seems to be more of as a line in the sand concerning having the opinions of others imposed on them. It seems to them that places with liberal leadership are more inclined to mandate the wearing of masks than those with conservative leadership. They feel these mandates are imposed without hearing or considering their concerns. It is seen by them as being another example of liberals imposing their beliefs. The more they are called names and having their morality impugned, the deeper they dig their feet in. The actions of tyho0se who are for masks are not designed to get agreement and have the opposite effect.

Question: If you resist wearing a mask, does your frustration of years of having things imposed on you cloud your opinion?

Not at all it is just BS and violates my civil liberties ___

Maybe a little ____

Yes ____

What are the concerns of those opposed to wearing masks (I personally feel we all should be at least asking these questions):

1) Why did Dr, Fuci and the CDC among others reverse their opinion on the effectiveness of wearing a mask?

a. The explanation that they have learned that the virus is not spread as frequently via contaminated objects as they originally thought but is instead passed most frequently by people primarily via drops of moisture such as sneezing makes sense. But it is not highly publicized as a reason for the change. If it was said "We originally thought it was primarily transferred via objects. We were wrong." I feel it would help. Their failure to directly admit they were wrong may contribute to wondering what else they are wrong about.

2) There is proof that masks prevent direct contact of the droplets from a cough or sneeze IF it is inside of social distancing guidelines. This answer is not placed within the context of viral load studies that seem to indicate that except for the most vulnerable, a single cough or sneeze exposure will not infect the person sneezed or coughed upon. How much protection are we gaining?

a. Having all people wear masks versus only the infected is because most cases are asymptomatic. If we only required those we know are infected we would miss those who are asymptomatic. Now we have indications that asymptotic cases are not contagious so what are we protecting from?

b. The case of the Ontario are nurses where experts downplayed the effectiveness of masks.

ONA's well-regarded expert witnesses, including Toronto infection control expert Dr. Michael Gardam, Quebec epidemiologist Dr. Gaston De Serres, and Dr. Lisa Brosseau, an American expert on masks, testified that there was insufficient evidence to support the St. Michael's policy and no evidence that forcing healthy nurses to wear masks during the influenza season did anything to prevent transmission of influenza in hospitals. They further testified that nurses who have no symptoms are unlikely to be a real source of transmission and that it was not logical to force healthy unvaccinated nurses to mask. Arbitrator Kaplan accepted this expert evidence. In contrast, he noted the only fair words to describe the hospital's evidence in support of masking are "insufficient, inadequate and completely unpersuasive."

3) As Dr. Fuci says, the wearing of masks does not replace social distancing, and masks seem to be effective only for contact inside of social distancing, shouldn’t the focus be on social distancing?

4) If, as some studies indicate, most infections occur when groups get together for over 15 minutes, do not adhere to social distancing, and talk etc. loudly, and don't wear a mask, why is wearing a mask the main focal point?

a. Why are some groups OK to meet and others not ( such as churches)

5) Are there any studies that show areas with the same demographics that mandate wearing masks have lower infection rates than those that don’t?

( If cloth masks can't help people in smoke filled environments because the particles are too fine how do they stop the fine droplets of a cough or sneeze which some say is how the disease is spread versus large droplets?)

a. I have seen a couple studies where the drop in cases once masks are mandated that show a 0.9 to 2.0 % drop in reported infections. These studies did not include any other factors that may have contributed nor state their range of error.

6) What are the risks to the wearer?

Here are the instructions from the experts on wearing a mask.

1. Wash your hands before putting on the mask

2. Do not touch the mask when putting it off or on

3. Keep it in a sterile plastic bag and do not let it touch other surfaces

4. Wash your hands before taking the mask off and placing it in the plastic bag

5. Be careful not to touch your face when putting the mask on or off or adjusting it

6. Wash the mask frequently or change your mask often

7. Young Children should not wear masks

8. People who have trouble breathing should not wear masks

Does this list not sound like there are risks to wearing a mask?

a. Can we pass the virus to ourselves via a contaminated mask?

b. Can people, especially at risk people, get other diseases that compromise their health from wearing a mask?

e. When we are told masks do not compromise our breathing why can't children and people who have breathing issues wear them?

d. Does wearing a mask not increase how often we touch our face? ( a study in the 70's said yes)

If you ignore the first political portion that relates to the 1st amendment and the latter portion on vaccines there is some interesting information here on wearing a mask. I am not saying it is right, but it is something to be aware of. https://davidicke.com/2020/10/08/the-great-mask-rip-off-and-why-they-are-dangerous-to-your-health-time-to-say-no/

7) Even if the risk is small, given that few people follow the instructions 100% or even 50%, multiplied by 300 million people, is there not a risk to the population?

8) What are the odds a symptomatic person (asymptomatic people are now assumed to perhaps not be contagious) or a pre-symptomatic person will sneeze or cough directly onto a person with a low immune system while not practicing social distancing?

9) Does the benefit of number 8 far outweigh the risks of number 7?

10) Would not semi-isolating "at risk" people and having them wear N95 masks ( that protect them) and have anyone showing signs of symptoms wear a mask until either tested negative or isolated if positive give most of the benefits of number 8 and reduce the risks of number 7?

11) Why does there seem to be a correlation between liberal leadership and the passion for the wearing of masks?

a. Why with the recent spike is the focus on the wearing of masks versus the tracing of outbreaks, such as lax social distancing and groups?

( I will address Trump's positive test at the end of this post)

All these seem like legitimate concerns to me. Many I am sure can be answered and the concern addressed. Asking these questions does not make these people to be of low morals or without the ability to think or understand science, which is how many of my liberal friends position them. Such views of people divide us and are focused on being right and affixing blame versus moving us toward purple. It also, I feel, is negative energy, even if the intent is the protection of people from the virus.

Solutions to get us to purple:

1) An independent study to show the differences in infection rates between areas with like demographics that mandate mask wearing and those that don’t.

2) An even handed and well dispersed answering of the effectiveness of cloth masks.

3) An even handed well dispersed study of the risks to the mask wearer.

4) An even-handed third-party study that traces the paths of infections especially during the recent up-spikes.

5) An even handed, and promoted on mainstream media, debate (a debate; not a panel composed of like minded people) on the benefits of having everyone wear cloth masks versus having only those most venerable and those who elect to wear N95 masks.

If we do this, then we might all come together for a solution that supports the sovereignty of the individual and gets us closer to purple. Working together produces positive energy. Of course, the political social control and positioning, to the degree it may or may not exist, would be reduced and would resist such solutions. We must be prepared to address any resistance with a compassionate and heartfelt “why?” Let's find our common ground in the value of human life and through our mutual respect create a better world.

Question: Do you feel there is reason to question the value of having 300 million people wear masks versus the risks?

Not at all _____

Maybe a little _____

Yes____

Can someone have these questions and still be a good person?

Not at all ____

Maybe a little ___

Yes ____

Lock -downs:

I personally have a problem with slogans that over simplify issues and are used to support positions. 'Business versus lives' is one such slogan. It really is one live versus other lives. Here is the latest position by The WHO.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1314573157827858434

The left answer to this is focused on Trump saying The WHO agreed with him on the dangers of lock-downs. The take that to mean not that this video supports his position, but that he was saying THE WHO specifically stated that Trump was right. They focus on the fact the video does not mention his name.

The WHO also had a report a month or so ago that said three more months of a US lock-down who hurt the supply chain of medicines to the rest of the world would result in 1,000,000 additional world wide deaths especially in third world countries.

We need to have a bipartisan discussion where the focus is not on political gain.

Trump:

I can hear my liberal friends now and feel their outrage. I encourage them to slow down their minds, get out of their auto pilot mind and into their critical thinking mind. No matter how much it hurts. no matter how much it might change their lens about some things, look at the below as unbiasedly as they can. We all value human life.

Note: Remember I am NOT a Trumper. I am for fair and honest reporting and clear and factual critical thinking.

I keep hearing how Trump's handling of the virus has lead to tens of thousands of deaths. I do know many feel his lack of urgency in his initial presentation to the nation and feel his decision to not cause panic was a mistake. He did stop travel from countries where the virus was prevalent over the objections of the same people who now say he did not do enough. He also increased manufacturi9ng of supplies and ventilators for hospitals. He shut down the economy at the advice of the CDC. My question is, what specific actions did he not take other than the subjective speech, that led to thousands of deaths? Was it more egregious than the policy of returning assisted/nursing patients from hospitals back to their facility ( that we can't get reports on until after the election because they conveniently can not find the documentation)? Whatever it was, where were the people accusing him now then and why did they not speak up at the time. Twenty- twenty hindsight is easy, but it does no good. I hope we can come together and get off this non productive train of affixing blame.

Why does it seem I am defending Trump. I believe in truth and not the manipulations for political purposes no matter what side one is on.

On his positive test:

All my liberal friends, in one way or another, have expressed hope to me that he dies from it. They all feel he caught COVID because he did not wear a mask. I am hearing over and over on TV that his not wearing a mask is the main reason he caught COVID. I will reiterate here and now that according to the CDC and all healthcare organizations the wearing of cloth masks does NOT, repeat, does not protect the wearer. The media knows that if you hear something over and over from a source you trust, you will believe it over your critical thinking mind. Any statement that Trump caught COVID because he did not wear a mask flies in the face of the very science we say we should follow.

I also hear it said Trump probably infected hundreds if not thousand's because he gave speeches with many people in attendance. Again I appeal to critical thinking and following the science we say we should follow. When he gave speeches he was a distance away from the crowds and it was outdoors, so there is little to no chance he spread it to the crowd. Also, we was frequently tested so the time he was contagious could not be more than the time of the last negative test and when he was quarantined. Of course my liberal friends justify their narrative by insisting he is lying about being frequently tested with no evidence to support their belief.

What we do know is that many people in attendance of the Rose Garden event to introduce his Supreme Court nominee in the crowd did not abide by social distancing, had physical contact, and did not wear a mask. Yet we seem to again only focus on the wearing of masks. We also know that protocols within the White House were seemingly lax. This should serve as a lesson learned, My question is why do we focus on this and not the lax protocols of groups peacefully as well as violently protesting? Our view seems very skewed and selective based on our political bent and justifying it.