Consept

@PurpleTree It's difficult to compare countries anyway but a fairer comparison would be swedens direct neighbors ie Norway, Finland, Denmark. The countries you mentioned had massive issues stemming from their proximity to the covid hotpots in Europe like Italy and Spain. With Sweden their numbers stand out in comparison to their direct neighbors, some of which they have 10x more deaths than.

@PurpleTree https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/17/king-sweden-failed-covid-strategy-rare-royal-rebuke-lockdown-hospitals-cases

Check it compared to other nordic countries

Yes i think it is a lot to do with that, think how many times over the past few thousand years its been claimed and predicted but obviously never happened. Its a delusion that is the extreme of an imagined self

I probably wouldnt just because i think it causes more resistance, i get the feeling people who are brazenly not wearing masks are looking for someone to argue with so i think its better not to feed that. On personal level it doesnt annoy me its just a little disappointing. Whats interesting is that recently the King of Sweden has come out to say that the Swedish approach of not really having a lockdown has failed, even Anders Tegnall, the head epidemiologist has said that he didnt expect the second wave to be as brutal as now the health service has said many cancer other treatments have had to be pushed back and theyre struggling. Keep in mind Sweden has a very good health service, so in other countries where they dont plus dont take measures, it could be catastrophic. This is the strongest indication that measures do need to be taken (if you need more than numbers) and shows masks are not just about telling you what to do and government control https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/17/king-sweden-failed-covid-strategy-rare-royal-rebuke-lockdown-hospitals-cases

If i thought that was a serious possibility then of course i wouldnt, but you would have to prove to me that that is the case. There have been no deaths from all the tests so far and all the work thats been done doesnt lead me to believe that would be the case. So with that in mind, if its not really provable that i would get the side effects you speak of but it is provable that 0.1% people in the world will die according to your number thats one in a thousand which works out at 7 million people worldwide, 1.6 million have already died plus we dont know side effects and long term effects for those who have contracted it. So if i was to weigh up those two things i would say the disease is worse, unless you can somehow prove the vaccine is worse

Interesting perspective, so you see being selfish as having expectations on anothers behavior, of course if the pressure wasnt there in the example i gave, i would still say that its a selfish act in running away in that you are thinking of yourself rather than another and your action can in fact make anothers life harder, the pressure part maybe considered selfish but it doesnt then validate the running away action as not selfish, but i guess youre right thats just a definition of being selfish. Apart from pressuring someone to do something, what would you say is a general definition of a selfish action? Hope you dont mind the questions, im really interested in this perspective

Your issue seems to be more with being forced or pressured in anyway to do something that youre not 100% sure about or dont agree with, as you believe this compromises your freedom. Ultimately you are allowed to say no to the vaccine, i wasnt saying anyone should be forced, i was just saying objectively speaking it is a selfish act, as would be deserting when your country is being invaded (im not saying this is the case with your grand-father, i dont know the circumstances). In both instances the scale is seemingly quite big, so lets take it down. Say its just you and me getting a beer or something, 2 guys approach us and it seems like theyre going to attack us, you say to me 'i think we're gonna have to fight here', i say 'I dont want to fight and i dont like the idea of you pressuring me to fight, even if you did fight by yourself, youll probably be ok anyway'. Now if you pressure me to fight, i can say 'i just dont believe in violence i dont think it will help, in fact im going to go', leaving you to fight and giving a greater chance that youll get hurt. Within your logic im 100% right to do this and in a way and from a certain perspective i am right because im not risking my survival, however im making your survival doubly risky and in that way its undoubtedly a selfish act, you would definitely see it like that if you were in that circumstance.

Interesting, so you would rather possibly die than trust modern medicine? OK what if it was your son who was in that unfortunate position and you had to make a choice for him, assuming hes not at an age where can consent either way, would you not let him take the new medicine with a good chance that if he didnt he might die? Separate, what if an illness was making your life hell, you couldnt go out, you felt like shit all the time, would you take the medicine yourself?

I dont really know too much about CRT but i get the gist of it from what youre saying. If you think about it on a wider scale especially where youre from (im guessing America) there is a real issue with race, both underlying and occasionally or quite frequently it bubbles to the surface. But its carried within probably everyone in America (and most other countries) maybe just in different ways, the fact that you dont even feel comfortable talking about it is testament to that. So the question is how do you get past these issues? keeping quiet about them or not addressing them in healthy ways wouldnt really be a solution. i understand maybe you dont want to talk about them at work but i cant see another environment where you would go out of your way to discuss these issues. Also understand just because you want to keep silent about them, other maybe poc's may have to deal with the underlying bias' of other people in different but consistent ways. If you as an individual had trauma it would it would make sense to address these traumas through therapy or whatever other healthy ways, mostly involving shining a light on your fears and traumas, you of course wouldnt get passed them by staying silent and not opening up about them. This does not change when its extrapolated onto a population, the result is just more people suffer on both sides of the fence. Maybe CRT is not the best way, i dont know enough to have an opinion on it, but i think having this general conversation between all races is what will heal the ongoing trauma and progress your society. America has a lot of violence, oppression, hatred and all kinds of things in its past, it was founded on a genocide that was only a few hundred years ago, there is still hatred actively going on, on the fringes of society, it will take time and effort to heal all of this.

This is cool but theres loads of people who share love and light in poverty stricken regions of the world but they still get sever diseases, i dont think the 20k or so that died from ebola were all negative people, in fact a lot of Africans are extremely positive. What youre saying is somewhat true in that if you live healthily and joyfully probably your immune system and body will be in better condition but its not a super power you can still get ill, i see this ideology a lot in new age circles and from a meta non-dual perspective it doesnt really hold much water. Please also note i dont hold any fear in regard to covid and im not looking for an answer on whether i should take it or not, i will most likely take it. I was aiming the piece and those that have not questioned why they dont want to take it and wanted to raise conversation around that topic.

To be honest ive seen more fear and scare mongering from people who believe in conspiracies (not saying you do), and people against measures to curb the disease than i have with people that consume mainstream media, most of them seem to just get on with it and follow the measures without making a big fuss, i dont think theyre doing it because they fear they will die. As i said most likely vulnerable people will fear it because there is around a 7% chance theyll die if they catch it so i dont think its an irrational fear. But anyway let me ask a question, lets say you go to your doctor and after tests he informs you that you have cancer, theres some chance that you may die although he doesnt know exactly, it may also make you sick and affect your life dramatically. He says good news though we have an experimental drug that has been developed this year and has passed all required tests and has an efficacy rate of 95% so more than likely if you take this drug youll be completely cured, its so far been tested on 100,000 people without any serious issues unless youre allergic to it in which case the effects are still minimal and very few people are allergic, all the best scientists and medical professionals in the world have been working on it and approve it. Would you take this medication?

Again dont take selfish as an insult as i mentioned in the piece its merely an observation. If you watch what your mind does and what youve written, everything is to justify you not wanted to have some sort of inconvenience in order to potentially save lives, youve even gone as far as to say 'people die', in which case i could switch that back on you and say you shouldnt have a problem taking in it because worst case someone will die and well people die anyway. Its not that you should trust pharma and governments whole heartedly but you have to weigh up whats more likely a worse outcome, on one hand a disease that has killed 1.6 million people already, youre argument is that most of those lives arent important because theyre old or sick anyway. On the other hand a vaccine that has been tested and over 100,000 people have taken without anyone dying or becoming seriously ill after taking and which could save loss of life going forward. Even if it doesnt work the intention by creating and public taking it is somewhat selfless. Also think, lucky for you youre probably quite healthy, but lets say you had underlying health conditions that didnt affect your life but damaged your immune system, most likely you would think it was selfish for people not to take the vaccine as this will risk your life, if you have an egocentric outlook on the healthy side, no doubt youd have one on the underlying condition side and most likely youd be quite angry at those that refused to take it because of fear or whatever other reason.

Youre right it is human nature, but egocentric is a lower level of consciousness, there will be times when it is appropriate to drop down to this level when your survival is really under threat. What is happening here is survival is under threat for a lot of people 1.6 million so far, but fear of, as you say an unknown in which after multiple tests no one has died and all the scientists and experts say that it wont kill anyone, has overided peoples ability to weigh things up accurately and led to people dropping to egocentrism. Same thing happened with people panic buying at the start of the pandemic, there was plenty of food for everyone but fear of the unknwon took them deep into egocentric behavior

Yeah this is actually a big problem as well, the whole vaccine link to autism is based on parents blaming vaccines that their kids are autistic, once this is considered a thing it leaves the connection there in peoples minds. There are lots of grifters, specifically in the alternative medicine sector who see this as a gap in the market in which they can stoke up distrust of modern medicine and offer themselves as an alternative. One example is Dr Buttar who jumped on the whole covid hoax thing and boosted up his social numbers and getting paid to speak on channels and at events as well as promote his alternative treatments. This clip below is of him treating a girl a few years ago, the girl was forwarded to him from an anti vax organisation, if you want actual conspiracies, sometimes look at those pointing the fingers. The clip is hilarious btw

Heres a good test, find someone, a friend a family member or even acquaintance, who has what you would consider to be an unhealthy lifestyle, maybe they dont do any exercise or eat junk food for every meal, try and get them to change to super clean, super healthy diet and get them to exercise and meditate regularly. If you do try and even if you are successful you will see how hard it is to get someone to change their ways and this is just on a one to one basis, imagine that times however many million in your country with someone on TV or an advert telling them what to do, its pretty much impossible. In the UK you can even get the gym paid for you if youre unfit and its affecting your health but still we have one of the highest obesity rates in europe

To add to what Leo said, vaccine companies are immune but its the government that picks up the liability if something goes wrong for you, in which case you can claim money if your complaint is upheld. This is very necessary to do it this way otherwise pharma will stop making vaccines, they did want to stop in the 80s as it wasnt cost effective considering the production cost, testing and the fact that you only give one shot and then thats it, traditional medicine that you have to take regularly is much more profitable, in fact vaccines only make up about 2-3% of pharma profits in the US, total amount is actually less than alternative medicines. So if you add on even 0.001% of cases where something might go wrong its pretty much impossible to make it worth their while, hence the government brought in the Vaccine Injury Court - https://time.com/3995062/vaccine-injury-court-truth/ Meds can be useful but obviously there are huge incentives to keep people on drugs or to prescribe certain drugs and a lot of the time they dont actually have that much effect, there are of course drugs that are very useful and save lives. I think its more of an issue in places like America where the industry is more commercialised, Im from the UK and i was actually shocked at how many ads for meds they have when a visited the US a couple of years ago, in the UK the most youd see is an ad for cough syrup or parcetomol but in the states it was like anxiety tablets and all types of meds. There are also many instances of pharma companies buttering up doctors to prescribe certain drugs, all these are problems of capitalism invading public health. There would need to be pharma companies but it would need to be much more balanced than what is currently happening in the US

Not to pounce on you, but we're talking from the point of view of someone who, through fear or otherwise believes that the virus wont affect them, so really we're asking for a somewhat selfless act in that theres minimal risk to the person but lets say theres some and by taking the vaccine it can have a positive effect in terms of others being less likely to be infected. As Leo says it also will affect them in the long run, either in terms of the economy or them getting it or someone close to them getting it. So a lot of the people who will get it or expect others to get it is not necessarily out of fear, they may also think it wont affect them directly but theyre taking it despite whatever risk there is because they know everyone is better off if the virus is no longer around. Those that are scared are probably those that are vulnerable or those that may go bankrupt if things dont get back to normal, you can call that selfish but i would say their survival is a real risk at least a lot more than the side effects of the vaccine. So if we were to weigh it up, i think their fear of their survival makes a lot more sense and also does not significantly affect others, so in that way its along the lines of expecting others to sneeze into a tissue instead of the air when in a confined public area.

Government will always reflect the overall consciousness of the people. Politicians say what they think people want or care about because they need to do that to get into power, whether going to enact or not is another thing as theyre most likely funded by some other rich people, but if the public make enough noise they will have to address a particular issue, otherwise they wont be elected for another term. So the fact is majority of people are not interested in their health or healthy eating or exercise, we live in the information age where we can get all kinds of information, so the government not informing you is not really an excuse especially when if they did inform you wouldnt listen. Also when things are brought in like the sugar tax which are meant to deter people from excess sugar, people protest it, there is an argument that its a tax on the poor as well. I dont think the information is hidden or censored and most governments do have guidelines on good health and advice on exercise. Im not saying theyre perfect as theyre definitely not, but think what you would do in their position when youve got a nation, definitely here in the uk, that just either wont care or will literally protest if the sugar is reduced in their sugar water or healthy school meals are introduced https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-scotland-42569280

OK but why do you know this to be true? its still stuff that was written by someone else be it in the past or now, there are many stories from many different cultures that can be interpreted in many different ways, none of this is in your direct experience and there doesnt seem to be much evidence for it apart from writings which youve interpreted in a certain way, so why are you so sure that it is true?

If i understand your point, youre saying that most likely the vaccine will be damaging possibly because of lack of testing an that most people just want the pandemic to be over so they wont research to see whether it is potentially dangerous, government can leverage this to just get the vaccine out and then not be able to pull it back if something does go wrong. I would say there has been sufficient testing, probably more than youd get from a lot of medications currently on the market, the only thing you can say is that there isnt long term testing over say 5, 10 or more years, but this is the case with most drugs, majority of people who take medications dont look at research papers spanning multiple years. Realistically that couldnt happen with this virus because you cant wait on someone to monitor people for 10 years whilst over a million people die per year, that just doesnt make sense and is not ethically right. People do want the pandemic to be over so a lot would just take it, but this goes both ways, most people who are against or think its dangerous wont really research either, theyll just go with their fearful feeling and look for things that can confirm it. In this instance if you arent going to research it comes down to whos perspective you believe to be more valid, viral experts, scientists and whoever else created and approved the vaccine, or members of the public who have no background in the field but are going off of a fear reaction that the virus is dangerous. Personally id go with the experts but i can understand if you are fearful yourself why you might go with your uncle Jim on facebook. Youve said that those involved in the vaccine or government are not necessarily evil people at that the behavior is unconscious. I dont really see it like that, i think a lot of peoples intention is to save lives, some maybe in it for the money but even in that circumstance, killing people is not going to get them money. Your opinion is really just based on whether the vaccine is harmful, they have tested a lot of people and its not been the case, so it would really be on you to prove that it is harmful.

High Wycombe (just outside London) ??‍♂️

If formlessness is impermanent what would there be if it wasn't there?

Thats not true, there are still safety guidelines and it has to be fully tested, it hasnt got a license which is a completely different thing - "The consultation document said that if there were a “compelling case, on public health grounds, for using a vaccine before it is given a product licence, given the nature of the threat we face, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation may take the very unusual step of advising the UK government to use a tested, unlicensed vaccine against covid-19, and we need to make sure that the right legislative measures are in place to deal with that scenario.” The document added, “A covid-19 vaccine would only be authorised in this way if the UK’s licensing authority was satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate the safety, quality, and efficacy of the vaccine. ‘Unlicensed’ does not mean ‘untested.” "

Well you could go off the trials theyve already done, that will give you indication, plus the past research done on the sars vaccine as i believe a lot of the research for that was used for this. So if you wanted to say that it wasnt safe, which there could be an argument for, youd have to say why the research and testing done so far is flawed or wrong