Consept

Its a big stretch to say Trump handled this well, he made many mistakes and was set on ending the lockdown in April which wouldve been a disaster. China could have done much better as well. I think in most places those with compromised immunity were isolated. But it is a hard job to be in charge when something like this happens, i think preventative measures are key so hopefully everyone learns for next time

I agree with with pretty much all of your points

i wouldnt say its fear, fear would be that theres no basis to be worried about it and then you over react based on not a lot. I would say there was a lot of basis to be worried about covid considering what happened early on in Italy. Me personally it wouldve been too much of a gamble to say 'despite strong advice from all of my advisors and experts, im going to risk the lives of a few 100 thousand people so our economy can stay open, i have no basis for this decision other than i dont trust my advisors and i dont think a disease can be that bad'. I honestly dont think many people wouldve have made that gamble, for example would your gamble your own families life in such a manner? A sensible position would be to lockdown initially and then get as much research and what not so you can make an informed decision rather than just say no lockdown without sufficient information. The Brazil bitchute vid would need more context, i dont know whats being said, if its new, nothing, so i cant really comment on that, as in i would need more information before making a reaction

Im with you it should be examined, but my point is that what would you have done differently, im not saying that in a challenging way, im just saying examine what you would have done in that position yourself. Ultimately, people have talked about a virus killing a lot of people for the last 20 years, even George W warned about it, no preparations were taken, thats more the issue. This could have been dealt with easy if there was real pre-planning and preventative measures, Trump released a budget just before the outbreak that was going to cut funding to the CDC, so there really was nothing in the way of planning for this. Another point is that this is exactly the type of disease that could be dangerous because its in a sweet spot of not being very fatal (if its too fatal it wont spread ie ebola) but being quite contagious, which means that it can get around quickly and be deadly to the people it will be deadly to. So this is what the people that foresaw it were worried about. Even at a death rate of 0.2% if the whole world got it youre looking at around 14,000,000 deaths which is pretty significant, obviously thats simplistic and a worst case scenario but again I dont think you would take that gamble. You can think its not believable but with due respect, youre not a virologist, so essentially you will be telling people who have dedicated their lives to the field that they were wrong and taking a gamble on that basis, in which people definitely wouldve died. If youd like context for it the Brazilian president did something similar and its been a complete mess there - https://www.nytimes.com/article/brazil-coronavirus-cases.html

@Parththakkar12 Ok so lets say, you were the prime minister of Britain, at the time your information was that if we dont lockdown 470,000 people will die (thats what some have said would be the number now without lockdown in the UK). So the question is would you confidently say that we wont do a lockdown knowing this number, so at best gambling with lives and possibly killing 470,000 people, most old but not all, or deal with the problems that youve highlighted? I agree they are issues but potentially will get better over time

I don't think the suicide rate is any higher than last year at least in the UK of course that could change but for now there's nothing saying the lockdown caused more suicides, not to say the lockdown didn't have issues, domestic abuse etc. The other thing is that if the economy can't survive a lockdown for 3 months then there's a lot of problems with the economy than we thought and it probably needed to be exposed. Hopefully we can move forward and either improve the system or overhaul it in favour of some form of socialism

Its true, the playboy mansion was basically an ashram

I'm not sure that the info at the time was that it only kills 0.1% and that it's majority old people. Also here in the UK Boris Johnson initially said he was going down the herd immunity route and the whole country was in uproar. Further to that Sweden he didn't do a lock down have the most amount deaths compared to their scandanavian neighbours in some cases 10x more and the amount of anti bodies in the population is not much better than their neighbours, no where near enough for herd immunity. If an uncertain decision was made, which plenty were of course, but something like not doing lockdown and the countries health system was not fully equipped which was the case in many places, it could've been a lot worse.

I see what you're saying, kind of like a challenge for them to bring him down to their level

Check out the bikram yoga guy that was a mess. It feels like the power differential is too wide, a follower of a guru almost sees them as a God so then to take advantage of that I dont think thats cool or at least not in the best interest of the student. But then question is what does a guru do if they want sex or a relationship?

he could be doing it for attention its not impossible but i think theres been a clear shift in consciousness. I saw his videos when he first did the aya and obviously it was probably too much too soon but he definitely experienced something. I think it could be a positive he just needs to integrate it more but that will come in time. Its interesting because his normal audience are literally the opposite of what hes talking about now so im intrigued to see where he goes with it, he could get lost in the chasing views again but we'll see, good luck to him

I think if youre criticising the handling of it, and dont get me wrong there are things to criticise, how would you have dealt with it given the information that was given in February?

Teal Swans a strange one, not sure if shes beyond turquoise, but anyway theres been enough threads about her. Id say Lisa Cairns, Pema Chodren, theres more but not coming to mind

Ultimately, without being too simplistic, if you have a society where anyone can carry guns there will be problems. I can't see how a society, especially one with wealth inequality amongst other issues, can both have guns and not have issues around guns.

This is a big part of it, if the guns were reduced i think police would be less on edge, there would be less police shootings etc. But its such a big business in the US i just cant see it happening. I mean kids literally get shot at schools and they still dont consider it, in fact a solution ive heard is more guns and training for teachers. Ive been stopped a few times and at no point did i fear for my life, it was an annoying situation but thats it. I would argue with them and question why theyre doing it but i dont fear any violence from them. Obviously i know if i was to insult them or swear at them or resist they would arrest me. I cant imagine what i would be like to genuinely fear for your life from the police, that Castillo shooting was horrible and speaks to how unnecessarily tense guns make routine situations

I know what youre getting at, but i just think in any other context of a man shooting another man in the back, take away the uniform, its a heartless act. Now is being in the police and being able to kill without consequence a big factor of course, but that shouldnt be the case. Like you said if it was your dad it would be the worst day of your life and you would see all the ways it couldve been avoided. Fair enough there are situations where its unavoidable but this for me couldve been avoided. I think we should have compassion that this man couldve been someones father or husband or brother or whatever. I think if you would have compassion for your dad in this situation and are able to look at how this could be avoided, you should have compassion across the board.

Im surprised its even 6.6 guns per 100, of course i get that police have to have guns in the US (gun control is an issue by itself) but my point was that if they let him go while he was running away, so what? They had his car he wouldnt have got very far, there was cctv, they had his details, he wasnt really violent so just let him go and pick him up later, thats what they probably wouldve done in the uk. Im also thinking that part of it is pride like the cop didnt want to 'lose' the situation, of course its speculation but i think it could be true

Here in the UK officers dont have guns generally but have tasers, many suspects run away and are apprehended later through cctv or whatever else, nothing is lost by not shooting them.

Say your dad for example was involved in this situation, try and imagine your dad being gunned down by the cops whilst running away with a taser, would you have the same perspective?

Either way, i wouldnt want a police force that assumed i or anyone, was a violent sociopath who was likely to rape people using a taser, just off the bat. It has to be guilty until proven innocent and ultimately the job of the police is to protect and serve, that can mean protecting the person from themselves if that situation occurs. Of course if the person is attacking or reaching for a gun then yeah i understand lethal force but aside from that, if someone is literally running away, i cant see a justification for it. Would you shoot a dog that was running away? I mean look at this one, its so over the top -

I agree with you completely, ultimately this is the route humans will have to talk to evolve and it has to be done on an individual level. I dont know Brazil to well, most of my knowledge is from football and the film 'City of God', but i assume its red/blue with some orange and green. So it would be a big jump to get up to what youre talking about, although i would love to see that, i never understand why some of the things you mentioned arent taught in schools. But from a more blue perspective, do you think some kind of policies could be implemented or anything could be done about the current violence, or its just a case of letting it play out because things are improving as you say

Exactly, do you remember the uproar when Harambe the Gorilla was killed? The police or the public will not bat an eyelid at this human being killed, so obviously the compassion is there but as you say its reserved for beings who seemingly have no control over their actions and are just following their nature or reacting out of trauma. But how many humans have had trauma or how many humans are just acting out in the moment without thinking, it also assumes we have free will, which is not exactly true. There can be literal trauma to your brain that affects your decision making or even you were born with a certain kind of brain that reacts unpredictably or you received psychological trauma in your life that affects your reactions. There are so many variables out of your control that to shoot to kill just seems crazy, especially considering the compassion and uproar that probably wouldve happened if it was a lion or a dog or a gorilla. I dont think its good enough anymore just to say it was police policy.

Nah if the persons running away, with a tazer or not i dont think it should shoot to kill. I get that hes playing with fire and shouldnt have done it but to me its not a death sentence. He wasnt being arrested for a violent crime, just let him go or taze him if you can, or even shoot him in the leg. But i dont think the cops were in that much danger that they had to shoot him. If a dog attacks you without drawing blood and then runs away its a bit extreme to then chase it and kill it, let alone a human. I think it just speaks to the police culture that this is considered normal or by the book.

Do you think theres anything structurally within the whole system that could change the level of crime? Im just asking because although the police maybe stemming the tide at the moment, it cant go on like that forever

Theres no question there needs to be police reform in the states, the whole way its setup as you say, with the unions and merits does not make sense for an organisation thats serving the public. If you look at this video below the defensiveness of the union chief really shows the pervading attitude of the police. I do have sympathy because it has been set up in this way for so long, so i wouldnt even necessarily put it on the individual officers but whoevers in charge of keeping the system going really needs to look at it. Has been very positive in terms of people power recently, ive always been down on politics as i dont think the people have much power, but recent events have shown me that there is power there, through the fear of those in charge. One thing we have to be careful of is trial by media or public scenarios, that maybe an issue going forward but im still hopeful they can get the right, for the people, leaders in place. Thought this was funny and thought provoking as well -