Forestluv

I think "permission slips" and knowing can open doors and it super important for expanding potential. I've explored many different phenomena in which I gave my self "permission" to let go. Things I didn't know was possible arose. I realized "whoa, I did that" and had a knowing I could do it. Yet this only goes so far when external inputs are added in. If I lift a 500lb rock with the assistance of a bulldozer, it doesn't mean I can do it without the bulldozer. At a physical level, high doses of psychedelics are extremely strong serotonin agonists. They massively alter brain activity. The brain scans are shocking. No one has come anywhere close to mimicking this while sober. Knowing is great, if it is based in reality. Someone could "know" they can induce this type of altered consciousness and brain activity, yet that doesn't mean they can actually do it. I may 'know' that I can lift a 500lb rock without a bulldozer, yet that doesn't mean I can actually do it. I've never even heard of someone making the claim that they can induce a high-dose psychedelic state while sober.

I'd say it's a matter of degree. With some neural plasticity induced by previous psychedelic experiences, a low dose equivalent of about 10mg of 5meo is possible sober. For me, sometimes it just arises, sometimes I can coax it along. It feels like I'm mildly tripping. With some work, I'd say a moderate level of 15-20mg 5meo is possible with some assistance. I've reached these moderate trippy zones with breathwork. Yet I don't see generating high psychedelic dose equivalents sober. It would be extremely difficult to induce the equivalent of 500ug of LSD. That's like saying, "I'm going to induce the effects of drinking a bottle of vodka while sober".

@mandyjw I don't disagree with what you are writing. I'm saying that there are dimensions in which it's helpful to use external input. This input could be a spiritual teacher, breathwork, yoga, sensory deprivation tank, EMDR, psychedelics, hypnosis, long distance running etc. It depends on the dimension.

To me, "missing out" is a different dynamic than the original point. Imagine Becky has traveled to, and lived in, 57 countries over those 20 years. Alice settled down in a small town in Vermont. She has never left the state of Vermont. During a conversation on travel, Alice says "One doesn't need a motorized machine to travel. One can travel naturally". I agree with that. One can travel by foot and bicycle. Then Alice says "One doesn't need a motorized vehicle to travel the world. One can travel the world naturally". I would consider this to be partially true. By foot and bicycle, Alice can travel through Vermont and technically Vermont is within the "world". Yet the statement is misleading since the range of travel possible is limited. One cannot travel much of the world without a car and airplane. These motorized vehicles expand range. Alice may get upset and respond "You are trying to limit me!". . . In one context, Alice is unlimited in Vermont. One can spend there entire life exploring Vermont by foot / bicycle and barely scratch the surface. They won't even come close to exploring every flower, tree, house, person, insect, art etc. However, in the context of range - Alice won't be able to cover very much territory by foot and bicycle. It would take her weeks to travel from Vermont by bicycle. With an airplane, one can travel from Vermont to Europe, the middle east and Africa in weeks. I'd also be cool saying the quality of local travel by foot / bicycle is as good as international travel by plane. I like both. In some ways, I like local travel by foot / bicycle better. There are a lot of downsides to airline travel. Yet, one cannot explore a broad range of world territory without an airplane. Of course. There are many ways to travel: by foot, skateboard, roller skates, glider, dune buggy, car, boat, train, airplane etc. Whatever someone likes, go for it. If someone has a fear of airplanes and loves to skateboard, then ride your skateboard. Go to the skatepark. Do jumps and tricks. Ride down hills super fast. Have fun to your heart's desire. Riding a skateboard is awesome. I see no problem with it. Yet, one will not be able to explore the world on a skateboard. One cannot travel to China on a skateboard. I don't. I've also crossed gates through running marathons, triathlons, sensory deprivation tanks, yoga, lucid dreaming, breathwork and cultural immersion in foreign countries. You seem to be going into an area of FOMO. That's not a dynamic I had been writing about. But yea, I think it's great to follow your heart and be aligned with what you love. If a someone's heart is into skateboard riding, then do that. Don't feel pressured to get on an airplane. Yet if someone wants to travel to foreign countries, an airplane comes in handy.

Depends on the business and their culture.

The more I observe, the more I see there is a range. Some beings resonate super well, some beings so-so and other beings not well at all.

One irrational thing does not mean ALL things are irrational. This is extrapolation. If I am traveling and meet someone who is a Peruvian person that irrationally believes in dark magical spirits, it doesn't mean that everyone is an irrational Peruvian. Even if male circumcision is illogical, that has no bearing whatsoever whether the coronavirus vaccine is illogical. That line of thinking itself is highly illogical!

I don't know which would save more lives. I don't know how effective such a label would be. As well, I'm not sure how to make such a label reflect multifactorial inputs of causation to cancer. It is not as simple as processed meats => cancer. It is much more complicated than that with various inputs of causation. Yet I think it would be fair to add a label about general health risks. Yet cancer labels on meats is not a fair comparison to covid. If there was a vaccine that could prevent cancer, I would be 100% behind that vaccine. I would be talking very similar to the cancer vaccine as I do with the covid vaccine.

Saying "I don't give narrative control to it" is narrative control. There is a place in which that which has the control to say "I don't give narrative control to it" does not have the narrative control to make that claim. I think this is a really good point. Ime, there is a price to pay and one can never go back. To me, it is incredibly enticing to approach a gate and if I cross that threshold, there is no turning back and I can never return prior to that point. That is the Neo side of me. . . When the absolute infinity is revealed, it becomes clear that any entity 'within' infinity is massively limited relative to infinity. I see lots of people claim "Oneness", yet don't seem to embody it. I consider 5meo to be the ultimate teacher because it includes ALL teachers. It is Sadhguru, Mandy, Leo, Rupert, Forestluv, Mooji, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad etc. Once it is seen, it is not unseen. It may be forgotten at times, yet there is no going back to experience a reality in which is was not seen. Sometimes it's super hard for me to try and go back prior and remember what that is like. There are faint memories, yet it's like a faint dream. My mind has been rewired long term. . . That is beautiful. To me, it is like you are describing a beautiful flower within a garden. Seeing that beautiful flower from other angles or appreciating other flowers in now way diminishes the beauty of what you described. Imagine a clear crystal cube. Absolute clarity. In that cube is both Nothing and Everything. No one thing can compare to that crystal because it contains ALL things. Any piece of artwork, thought, feeling, insight, game, teacher, Rupert Spira, dogs, LSD appearance, images - Everything. Anything you say is within that pure clarity. No story can be written about that clear crystal cube since all stories are within that clear crystal cube. No games can be changed within that Absolute clarity since all games are within that clarity. Anything I say is not another thing I'm not saying. If we are standing on a mountain together and I say "Look at that beautiful eagle over there", I'm not pointing to an infinite number of other things. If you respond by saying "It is the sunset which is beautiful. Looking away from the sunset is a distraction from the beauty and truth of the sunset." I'm not saying the sunset has no truth, value or beauty. I'm not saying the sunset is wrong and the eagle is right. I think sunsets are awesome and sometimes I love to sit and appreciate the beauty of a sunset. Other times, I like to appreciate another view: the beauty of the eagle. The larger picture includes both the sunset and the eagle. Yet if I speak of the eagle, I'm cannot speak of the sunset. That doesn't mean I'm unaware of the sunset, don't appreciate the sunset or think the sunset is wrong. You also seem to be assigning what you refer to as "beliefs" to me, which I hold and are upheld by others. The transcendent Mind is like water, gas and ice. Constructing, deconstructing, reconstructing. Melting, evaporating, solidifying, melting. . . And it includes everything you are saying. Everything you say is 100% true within the creation of what you say. An ice sculpture of a dolphin is true to itself as an ice sculpture dolphin. Are you willing to allow that ice construct to melt and evaporate and realize it can be reformed into an infinite number of forms that also also 100% true to that form? . . . Yet there is no turning back. One can never go back and see it soley as that beautiful ice dolphin they loved. There is a price to pay. Innocence is lost. A few years ago, my 6 year old niece scribbled with a bunch of crayons on paper. She gave me the paper and said "Uncle, when you feel bad look at this and you will feel better". She was radiating with pure sincerity, innocence and love. And she was right. Sometimes when I feel down I look at the scribbled paper and feel better. Yet it's not the scribble, it's the sincerity, innocence and love within the scribble.

From a wellness perspective, shaming and judging is irrelevant. What is relevant is benefit and harm to individual and society. I would only say that shaming is a valid method is a few cases in which someone is intentionally inflicting harm on others, yet not extreme enough to imprison them. A good example is in the U.S. with the confederate flag. Those that are using the flag as a symbol of white supremacy shouldn't be imprisoned, yet they also won't respond to rational discourse either. In this case, shaming can be effective. For example, SNL doing a skit that mocks Southern boys and the confederate flag. The case of religious exemptions again depends on the case. For example, a religious group may say that for religious reasons, they refuse to serve black or gay people. In the public sphere, this won't fly. I restaurant owner cannot put a sign on his window and say "No blacks or gays allowed" and then try to shield themself with religious exemptions. What they are doing causes harm with no benefit. Another example, would be a religious group in Idaho that refuse to interact with doctors due to religious reasons. Yet there are some things that require medical attention. Some of their children have diabetes that can easily be treated with insulin shots. Yet the group refuses to take these kids to a doctor. Instead, they have some type of warlock burn some herbs. These kids suffer terrible and develop severe health problems that could have been avoided. Some of the kids die. It is a form of child abuse. In this case, I would say it is appropriate for social workers to step in and help these kids. What they are doing causes harm with no benefit. Yet in other cases, I think spiritual / religious exemptions should apply. For example, Some Native American groups want to use psychedelics like mescaline and peyote in ceremonies. This offers benefit, yet doesn't cause any harm. So they should be allowed to do it.

It's not a question of one person imposing restrictions on another person. As I've said, personal freedom is one component of a larger system. You are hyper-focusing on that one component. Other components are benefits and harms at both individual and systems levels. It is illegal to drink and drive because one's personal freedom to drink and drive is outweighed by harms to both the individual and society. Therefore, society can step in and say "We don't want people driving drunk". You keep throwing out this theme of "fear". I agree that fear is an aspect in both directions. Some people have and exaggerated fear of the virus and some people have an irrational fear of the vaccine. Yet I don't see how you interpret what I've said as fear. Much of what you say has been integrated into what I've written. I've agreed with most of what you've written. Yet I don't think you are seeing the bigger picture and are hyper focusing on certain components.

In a way it is, in another way it isn't. Mind expansion can feel insane. Sometimes it's best to laugh and roll with it, likes its a dream or a movie. Yet other times it can put a strain on the mind and body. I've gone through some twisted, intense domains that knocked me out for a bit. My mind-body was like, "dude, chillout for a while with yoga, breathwork and forest hikes for a while". Not entering certain domains or taking breaks does not always mean one is avoiding repressed issues, not willing to look at truth etc. Sometimes it does, yet not always. I've entered places that afterwards I was like "why tf did I go there and engage with that?". Like engaging in a twisted movie that took a toll my mind-body. And not just with mind expansion. I've pushed things like running, yoga etc. so hard that I was causing damage to my mind and body. Like I was punishing myself, rather than loving myself.

I agree with you that there are many serious social ills that haven't gotten enough attention. Yet that does not translate into covid getting too much attention. Covid is a serious pandemic worthy of attention. Yes, there may be some aspects of feelings and over-reacting. Yet I consider it absurd to say that logic hasn't been implemented. Epidemiology, immunology and modeling is based on logic. That logic is then integrated with social dynamics, in which human psychology is considered. Together, that shapes public policy. The viral life cycle and mechanisms of infection has nothing to do with feelings, likes, dislikes, fear etc. For example, we know the viral spike protein binds to the ACE2 receptor of some epithelial cells and injects viral RNA into the cell. As well, viral variants have arisen with mutations in the spike protein. That has nothing to do with anyone's personal feelings. likes, dislikes etc. If I drop a bowling ball from a building, that ball will travel downward due to gravity at a specific rate. How anybody feels about that phenomena is irrelevant to the ball falling.

I would say half of group C is persuadable with moderate social peer-pressure. I predict vaccination rates will begin to slowly decline soon at 50% at the decline will be more pronounced at 65%. That is why this is the critical period. So far the limiting factor for vaccine rates was number of shots available. We are at the turning point in which the limiting factor will soon be number of willing unvaccinated people. Yet it's human nature to want to fit in and participate within social groups. Nobody likes to feel like an outcast. For example, imagine a college says that only vaccinated people can attend graduation. There is a policy that only vaccinated students can attend college sporting events for the next year. That would piss off some anti-vaxxing parents and students. Yet that type of thing shifts persuadable Group C. People want to feel accepted in social groups and participate in social events. Half of Group C would be like "whatever, I'll get the vaccine - then I don't have do deal with this crap". Yet that second half of Group C into Group D will be kicking and screaming. The bottom half of Group D would take up semi-automatic weapons and threaten violence.

You keep creating dualistic constructs. I agree that vaccine passports are problematic, yet not having vaccine passports is also problematic. You can clearly see why vaccine passports are problematic, that is why I'm not discussing that because you can already see that part. You are missing the part that not having vaccine passports is also problematic. It's like you can only see side aspect of a cube. Many issues involve pros and cons. Designing public policies involve zooming into to aspects, yet also zooming out and looking at the big picture is also important.

I don't understand this logic. Crappy food and pathogenic viruses both cause social harm. I can see the argument that we don't spend enough resources on Cancer prevention, yet that isn't a good argument against the coronavirus which also causes widespread harm. That would be a better argument for something like Blastomycosis. This pathogen rarely infects people and only causes mild symptoms. It would be absurd to demand everyone get vaccinated for Blastomycosis when we have more serious illnesses like cancer. Yet covid is not a rare, benign microbe.

Of course. Show me a study you've read that showed evidence that asymptomatic people can spread the virus (at low rates). Tell me your concern about the methodology and we can have a discussion. I'll start off in good faith. Here is a study indicating that the spread of covid through asymptomatic people is substantial. Give it a read and tell me what you consider the strong and weak points of the study. I think the study is strong in some areas, yet also has some weak points. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2774707 That is not my position. Please don't project positions onto me. My position on masks is that they reduce the Ro of viral spread, yet that is context-dependent. In some situations, the effectiveness is trivial. Some of the mask requirements are absurd. For example, at our local river - people are required to wear masks while kayaking. This is absurd. The chance of person-to-person spread during kayaking is tiny. These types of over-zealous requirements irritate people. However, in other contexts the effectiveness is better - such as in supermarkets. Of course vaccinated people can get the virus. C'mon dude, these are simple constructs of degrees. Getting vaccinated massively reduces infection chances by about 90%+ and those that get infected have milder symptoms. That is a massive reduction in infection spread. If 100% of people got vaccinated and we went back to social gatherings, the Ro would drop from about 2.5 (everyone unvaccinated) to about 0.2 (everyone vaccinated). That is easily controllable. You are not looking at systems and viral life cycles. It's not about vaccinated people being afraid of non-vaccinated people. I agree that would be a social toxin that we need to prevent through education. Consider the epidemiology at the population level. The issue is thresholds of % vaccinated in a population. If only 60% of people get vaccinated, the virus can persist at a high enough rate to form new variants - some successful variants will be resistant to the previous vaccine. If a new resistant virus arises, 0% of the population is vaccinated against that virus. If anti-vaxxers allow the arising of new variants and everyone needs yet another vaccine, that is going to piss off vaccinated people. As well, when people learn that unvaccinated people are the ones generating and spreading resistant variants - there will be fear and resistance against them. A lot of people will want them banned from social events like concerts and sporting events. I can't blame them. I got both of my shots. I'm fine going to a concert with vaccinated people right now, yet not with unvaccinated people that are petri dishes incubating new variants. You are being irrational. There have been 100s of millions of shots given. A very small percentage of people will have serious adverse effects. You could give 100s of millions of people lettuce and some will have serious adverse effects. If there was a subtantial number of vaccine-induced death, there is no way that could be kept secret. No way. Period. The last report I read was that several thousand people have been reported to die within 50 days of receiving the vaccine. Yet these were mostly 65+ year old people and it is the same death rate as if no shot was given. And none of the cases have been linked directly to the vaccine as direct cause. Yet there probably are a handful of deaths directly related to the vaccine. A few people will have autoimmune disorders and the vaccine could cause a severe response. Yet this has been extremely low. Well under 1%. If the serious negative outcome rate for the vaccine was 1%, that would mean millions of people in the U.S. would be suffering serious effects after the vaccine. Tens of millions of people worldwide. They wouldn't be able to keep it secret. I agree, yet peer-reviewed is a higher standard of data integrity. It would be like saying "Olympic athletes don't always have good diets". Of course not. Yet they have higher standards of fitness and have healthier diets than the average person.

I am most concerned about variants arising. Each infected person contains many thousands of viral entities. That means that there are trillions of viral replications. Each one of those replications has a chance of mutation. The vast majority of them will be irrelevant or harmful to the virus. Yet a very small percentage will be beneficial - perhaps 0.0001% of the time. Yet with trillions of replications, that becomes a serious threat. Those mutations will allow the virus greater binding affinity to cells, expand the range of cells it can infect and evade previous vaccines. I see it as a race in time and we are at a critical period right now as we near 50% of people vaccinated. So far, the limiting factor has been the number of shots - they have been giving vaccines as fast as possible. So anti-vaxxers haven't been an issue. Yet that is changing right now as we approach 50% vaccinated. As a rough estimate: Group A: 25% of population was eager to get the vaccination. They were will to pay money to get it, drive for hours for it or wait in line for hours. They have all been fully vaccinated. Group B: 25% of the population was somewhat reluctant to get the vaccine. Yet when it became available, they got it with mild trepidation. Group C: 25% of the population are very reluctant to get the vaccine. They will not take initiative on their own. They need some encouragement. Group D: 25% hard-core anti-vaxxers. In America, we are now finishing up Group B at maximum speed. Moving into Group C is critical. If vaccination rates slow down that will give the virus opportunity to spread. 50% vaccinated is not enough. There will be new variants that arise that are more contagious and resistant to the original vaccine. So I think it's super important to educate people about risks and work to socially invite Group C. I don't think they will be motivated enough on their own. Hopefully, we get to about 65% vaccinated soon, before new variants take hold. It will be much harder to convince the public to take a second vaccine for variants. To get above 65% vaccinated, I think society will need to implement vaccine passports, yet 65% of people would be vaccinated, so they will be cool with this. If a sporting event wants a vaccination certificate on your phone for entry, vaccinated people will be fine with this. This will put more pressure on those unvaccinated and could boost it up to 75-80%, which I consider the target threshold. . . However, there is also a risk. This type of social passport can be abused by government, so it's important for those vaccinated to be socially responsible in the opposite direction and pushback on government over-reach.

Vaccines do not try to treat symptoms. f someone as covid symptoms and needs a respirator, a vaccine is not going to help them in the short term. This is as basic as gets. You have a misunderstanding of what a vaccine is. Part of the problem is that anti-maskers, anti-mitigators and anti-vaxxers have allowed the coronavirus to take hold and spread. The more viral replications there are, there more opportunities there are for variants to arise that are more harmful, contagious and resistant to vaccines. So yes, we may need another round of vaccines next year to deal with new resistant variants that spread through =>unvaccinated<= people. If you can't see this, you are not open or serious about learning, expanding knowledge and seeing truth from different perspectives. This is great advice for general wellness. Social interactions are important for wellness. Yet you are seeing this myopically. You say you can see things from different perspectives, yet here you can only see one perspective (which has some truth). Now look from the perspective of the virus. The virus wants people to people in social groups. The virus wants people to form crowds at sporting events. That is how the virus spreads, via close contact between humans. So your suggestion to form social gatherings is beneficial in the sense of allowing social wellness, yet it is harmful in the sense of allowing the virus to spread. The two need to be balanced in terms of benefit and harm. If 1,000 people go to the kids soccer game and have a great time, that's all fine and dandy - yet if it also spreads the virus, puts 30 people in the hospital and grandma dies - that is not fine and dandy. Taken together, that would be more harm than good.

Those that are seriously interested in learning need to take responsibility for their learning. I'm not making an assumption about you not being interested in expanding your knowledge. This is based on your posting history. Introspect yourself. For example, notice above how you said you went through a lot of studies and put "peer-reviewed" in quotes and said it doesn't mean the science is good. This is indicative of a lens that is filtering out information that does not confirm one's pre-conceived notions. That is an intellectually lazy mind that is not interested in learning and expanding their knowledge. I doubt you are looking at studies and asking questions like whether it was best for the study to do a univariate ANOVA analysis rather than a paired T-test. And if you were open-minded and objective, you would understand that most studies have both insights and limitations. For example, one study could show a correlation - which is evidence - yet weak evidence. Another study could show mechanistic evidence, yet have a small population size which reduces the strength of the evidence. Yet this isn't your mindset. As well, the idea that everyone other than me has a dogmatic view and can't put things in different perspectives is a cop-out. C'mon. If you could put things in different perspectives, you would be able to easily see various perspectives of studies and how most studies have pros and cons from different perspectives. Yet you've already dismissed them all as "peer-reviewed" and "it doesn't mean they're good. I trust my personal experience over putting in effort to learn". This is intellectually lazy. I'll start you off. . . do a google search for "what is the degree of asymptomatic spread of coronavirus". There will be a list of peer-reviewed primary studies. Read one of those studies. Not an opinion piece. An actual primary research article. If you are serious about expanding your knowledge and think you can see different perspectives - come back here and tell me one piece of evidence in that study that suggested the asymptomatic Ro is greater than zero as well as a criticism about the methodology of the paper. Then we can have a discussion. Yet until then, you are just blowing smoke.

@SASAM You aren't looking at nuances. Benefit and harm of medicine is context-dependent. There are situations in which western medicine in unhelpful / harmful and situations in which western medicine is best. If someone is having a heart attack, it's best to be in a western hospital bed ASAP. One does not want to be having a heart attack and be fed herbs from a naturopath or hearing chants from a Shaman. In this situation, a western cardiologist surgeon who can clear the blockage and put in a stint is best. Yet there are other situations when it's better for one's wellness to start Yoga with a community, do breathwork, get therapy, start exercising, improve diet etc. (As Allan Greenberg suggests). Grouping all of western medicine as "bad" is hyper-simplistic. As well, the quote you gave was a criticism that western medicine focuses on treating symptoms, yet not cure. This is a fair criticism. Yet the vaccine is exactly what Allan Greenberg is advocating for. Vaccine development does not focus on treating symptoms - it focuses on the cure (preventing covid).

I don't "always talk about asymptomatic spread". I don't mention it that often because I don't think it is a major factor. When I refer to "asymptomatic spread", I am not saying it is on par with symptomatic spread. It is far lower. I'm saying the Ro for asymptomatic people is above 0 (yet far lower than symptomatic people). As well, people that have mild symptoms often don't consider it covid symptoms. Someone might think "I'm a little achy today. It was a rough week". They consider themself asymptomatic, yet have mild symptoms. Showing you a study indicating asymptomatic spread is greater than a Ro of zero would likely to do little good due to the lens you are wearing. You could easily find this information in under 2 min. online. (I just did a test run and found a peer-reviewed study via a google search in under 20 seconds). . . . My impression is that you are not genuinely asking to learn and expand - yet rather to dispute and defend a pre-conceived position. In this case, I wouldn't consider personal experience king. I'd consider it spiritual bypassing. For example, I just had a big meal. If I said "There isn't much starvation in the world today because of my personal experience", it would be a bypassing.

Yet this would also be toxic to a society. Anti-vaxxers are members of our community. I have neighbors that are anti-vaxxers. If they got covid and were dying from asphyxiation, it would be awful for paramedics to refuse helping her. That would fragment and traumatized communities. That's not the solution. As well, anti-vaxxers would still spread variants. That is the greatest danger right now. New covid variants arising that are more harmful, contagious and resistant to the vaccine. That can cause serious problems. This doesn't make sense to me. Getting the vaccination is super easy. It's not like it takes years of time and lots of money investment. It literally took me 5 minutes in my local supermarket and it was free. Getting vaccinated is so trivial and doesn't pull one away from other issues. I can understand if someone resists the vaccine because they have an autoimmune condition, don't trust pharmaceuticals or is afraid of shots / vaccines, yet to say I won't spend 5 minutes to get a free vaccine because there are more pressing issues is the lamest excuse I've heard. It's too late to address the pandemic through a cohesive social effort. That ship has sailed. We had that opportunity and guess who fucked it up? . . . Yep, anti-vaxxing, anti-masking, anti-social distancing fanatics. New Zealand is an example of a society that worked together with masks, social distancing, restrictions and lockdowns. They were able to do it. And now they are all coming together to get vaccinated. Yet they are rare. Most countries have too many antis to pull it off. In my state, anti-maskers stormed our capital building with semi-automatic rifles and plotted to kidnap the state's governor.

I agree with you that lockdowns, restrictions, social distancing and masks have negative impacts on psychology. It's been clearly demonstrated that social isolation has a harmful impact on brain and endocrine systems. Social isolation alters gene expression, neural wiring and hormone levels - in particular the stress hormone cortisol. These are factors that should be acknowledged and considered in social policy decisions. Referencing a 99% survival rates is a common myopic trap that prevents understanding systems. Lethality is only one component of a larger system. Imagine a virus in which had a 100% survival rate, yet it infected 90% of a population, 70% of people need critical hospital care to survive and 30% of people end up paralyzed. In spite of it's 100% survival rate, this virus would have a devastating effect on society. One of the reasons the coronavirus is so destructive is because it has a relatively low lethality rate, it takes time to incubate and can spread through people with mild symptoms or asymptomatically. This increases the Ro of the virus. If a virus killed it's host 100% of the time within 1 hour, it wouldn't be that bad because it couldn't spread. It would kill a few hundred people and vanish.

Breathwork worked best for me in this area. Not intense shamanic breathing. More gentle and nuanced forms. I've been able to reach states of relaxation and letting go I didn't know existed. The equivalent of spending a week on a beach in Belize.