Considering letting the virus run its course without restraints.

[Nightwise]

This might be a bit controversial, but these were some thoughts I had which I had written down in my journal. For that reason, keep in mind that what has been written there has not been written with the purpose or in the format to share in a topic to the rest of the forum; This idea I only got in hindsight. So rather, these thoughts have no 'finality' to them, but were some contemplations which I wanted to write down in the moment. I also feel like I could've expanded a lot more on this topic, but that too I did not feel the inspiration to continue.

Think of it as you may. My intent is to provoke mature discussion and to share different, alternating perspectives as to help people be more contemplative and therefore more conscious. I'm open to be corrected by someone and admit to certain mistakes or loopholes I've made in my arguments if somebody has a counterargument that has more depth and insight to it.

Quote

 I think it might seriously be a worthwhile consideration if we as a country or government were to decide to actually not try to prevent the corona-virus and just let the disease run its course, and let society continue as it always has been. Absurd, you might say? Well, let's think about it.

The biggest reasons why governments want to shut everything down is to prevent explosive infection and disease rates and by doing so they want to prevent hospitals to become overwhelmed. But... hospitals are only a tiny aspect of the totality of society as a large. By shutting everything down in society, you may prevent hospitals from becoming overwhelmed, but you disrupt the entirety of the rest of society and the economy at large. You basically sacrifice 95% of the activity and economy of society to ensure that 5% of it (the health care system) keeps running relatively smoothly.

Yes, the wave may come much faster and the peak will be much more intense and higher if you were to allow everything to run its course, but it would be over in a couple of weeks, instead of a couple of months which we are looking at right now. After it's over, society can start running as normal again. Yes, we would have maybe a couple of weeks where many people are sick and the activity of society will become very minimal, but right now by shutting everything down we have about the same effect as the effect would be if everyone would get sick at the same time (except for the health care system, then).

Your greatest argument against me will probably be that it's completely unethical to let so many people suffer and die from this disease and to allow hospitals and the workers in the health care system to become completely overwhelmed. But is it really unethical?

What people don't understand at large is that the purpose of life is not to survive it. People now think way too much in terms of survival instead of prosperity and flowering of love and consciousness. Yes, may people will die, but this is from the perspective of the absolute not a problem at all. Everyone will die at some point, haven't you realized?

Hospitals should still be there, and there should still be to a great degree care for those who are critically ill, but at the same time my proposal would be to campaign for people to consider if they perhaps simply don't want to prepare themselves for a possible death and to also take into consideration the idea that instead of going to the hospital when they are critically ill, that they allow themselves to experience whatever they are experiencing in the safety of their home, preferably with loved ones around them, and to prepare themselves mentally and spiritually for a possible death. If they choose to go about it this way, they have a much greater opportunity to die a peaceful death in the comfort of their own bed with loved ones such as close friends and family around them to make them leave their bodies with grace, instead of being in an emergency room in a hospital where every patient there is suffering deeply from their illness with nobody to love them or guide them as far as their spiritual needs are concerned, and with every nurse or health care worker there being in an almost constant state of panic and stress with every patient they have to treat and 'every life they have to save'.

So basically, our whole approach to death is skewed. We only think and talk of death in terms as to how to prevent it. We almost never talk about as to how we can understand or embrace it. And this is a huge problem in society at large right now. Death is one of the greatest taboos currently of the west. We fear it so much because we fail to understand it and most of us don't have a grounding in spirituality to find solace in a larger context about what one's eventual death is really good for. We cling to life because we think that what is essential to us would be gone once we die. It's not, because we are far more than our bodies and everything we've built up in our physical existence, but this spiritual ignorance and atheism and scientism is doing a lot of damage to the peacefulness of our souls, and both the quality of our lives and our inevitable death (or the smaller 'deaths' in our lives)

That's it for now, as I find myself running out of inspiration to write further right now. I'll think that I'll sometime later continue with writing how this pandemic situation affects me personally.

Bonus: Something I had also written in my journal, I also wanted to share some thoughts I had about people feeling the necessity to constantly guard over their children now that schools are being closed in my country due to the virus. I could've made a new topic for this subject, but I didn't feel too comfortable with doing this so I decided to include the subject in this topic instead.

Quote

First off, people are temporarily quitting their jobs because schools are closed and people 'have to take care of the children'. I actually don't quite agree on the fact that children cannot be left alone for some time. Younger children... Well indeed perhaps they shouldn't be left alone, this is up for discussion and I neither have the empircal knowledge nor the scientific research to take a responsible stance as far as younger children is concerned, but children that are getting a bit older (let's say from age 6-8 onwards somewhere) I feel are capable of being alone for at least some hours during the day. Especially considering that they have other children to play with, but even if they hadn't, you can often see that children can entertain themselves quite well. I think there is a lot more suffering going on with adults being alone rather than children being alone.

It may be so that children may have a lot of fear of being left alone for some time, but I think that this has a lot more to do wth our social conditioning (at least from a certain age onwards) than their intrinsic need to always be watched over. I think we as parents are often too over-protective and we don't teach our children self-responsibility and independence, because we don't trust them enough on their own and we don't give them the space to make choices for themselves and to cultivate their own path. Children, especially somewhat older children, can be left alone for a couple of hours, that shouldn't really be a problem I think. At least not once they get over the hurdle of the initial fear of being left alone because they have never gotten the opportunity to get used to being on their own, so initially they might be scared and fearful, but in the end I think they can get used to it and probably enjoy themselves as well.

And if they get a bit bored... So what? We adults get bored too; Probably a lot more than children do. I'd say it's good to let children alone for a bit and let them experience boredom. Boredom incentivizes people to be creative and think of new things to enjoy themselves or to otherwise create value for other people.

And again... They probably have plenty of friends they can play with.

Whether people should be working from home as much as possible I don't know, but don't let people not go to their physical location anymore or even quit work at home because they 'have to take care of children'. I think that's totally unnecessary for the most part; Well, depending on the specific needs of the particular child. Some might be younger, some might be handicapped, some might have a different psychological make-up, so individual cases may differ, but generally speaking I'd say it's not necessary to guard children so much. I think parents and society as a whole just has too little trust in children for them to make their own decisions. I acknowledge they need some guidance, attention, care and protection, but I think we as a society have gone too far

 

Edited March 17, 2020 by Nightwise

[Preety_India]

20 hours ago, Nightwise said:

Your greatest argument against me will probably be that it's completely unethical to let so many people suffer and die from this disease and to allow hospitals and the workers in the health care system to become completely overwhelmed. But is it really unethical?

What people don't understand at large is that the purpose of life is not to survive it. People now think way too much in terms of survival instead of prosperity and flowering of love and consciousness. Yes, may people will die, but this is from the perspective of the absolute not a problem at all. Everyone will die at some point, haven't you realized?

 

Your way of thinking is absolutely unethical. The economy and love and consciousness of a large number of people is not above the lives of the elderly and the vulnerable that would potentially be wiped out in a scoop when the virus wave arrives. Their lives have always been neglected and this dire situation more than ever will test the capacity among human beings for the greatest compassion. 

If this is not an opportunity to show spirituality then I don't know what is. 

The basic purpose of life is to survive it. There is nothing selfish or undesirable or unspiritual about it. The greatest form of spirituality lies in the survival of a life and the cessation of its suffering. 

Thinking of prosperity and consciousness and love is spiritually very hollow. Love is not having cats and dogs and having trips and people sharing flowers. Or trumpeting with a marching band proclaiming the joy of a prosperous life, that is nothing but narcissism. 

True love lies in shielding the wounded, protecting the vulnerable, in charity, not to muffle the cries of those in pain by turning the music loud, but to hear their pain and do whatever one can to prevent their suffering. In this there is no sacrifice, nobody has been asked to die, nobody has been asked to be a martyr. 

In fact people are suffering a bit of discomfort due to food shortage, essential supplies shortage, social distancing, panic buying, laying of jobs, money issues, Bill payments, schools shutdown... This is nothing in comparison to the sacrifices people were to make in olden days for the survival of humanity. Back then there used to be wars and in order to save everyone's lives, people had to join the army and be ready to die for the greater good. 

That's the level of compassion your ancestors have shown because of which you are alive today. 

Scientists back then caught infections while trying to produce a vaccine or a cure for many of the diseases that you are free from today. Those scientists had to pay with life, they died! 

That's called the greatest love. Not simply watching people die while you go camping and fishing and wait for your life to be normal

 Sorry but that's the worst form of greed and life is not worth living if human beings have to be completely stripped of compassion. 

 

[RareGodzilla]

In a way I agree. We do have a society in which death is a taboo topic and people are afraid to think about it. Just look at the way our graveyards are being treated. They are completely separate places with fence around them. You would never go hang out on a graveyard with your friends or something. That is unlike for example how it was treated in the middle ages, where graveyard used to be around the church where people would hang out and talk everyday stuff. In roman times for example graveyards used to be set up around the main roads leading to the city, everyone going out and inside would pas by. It was such a public place that some memorials even had warnings that gods will curse those who urinate or have sex around them. Definitely a differed relationship to death compared to western atheistic society. 

But ultimately I disagree with your idea. Our relationship to death needs to change in other ways. I don't consider neglecting the needs of fellow men as a healthy relationship to ones death. Corona virus outbreak can be a wonderful opportunity for worldwide solidarity and corporation. We can learn and gain so much from fighting this together, economic growth and GDP can wait, we already have to much of material shit we don't need in our lives. Also dying from this virus is very uncomfortable. Your lungs fill up with water and you slowly drown as you are fighting for breath. There also seems to be long term lung damage so it's not like just getting a sniffle at all. I would prefer not to. 

As for kids being by themselves again I partially agree. Kids are smarter then we treat them to be. It's so unfortunate to see parents treat them like babies and drive them directly to school as if they aren't capable of going on a bus themselves, just to name one example. But they still need guidance. I would consider parents sacrificing material successes for quality childcare a good thing. 

[Vladz0r]

I disagree because so many lives are savable through treatment. You basically just need enough treatment to stay afloat while your body can produce antibodies. Also, my dad is experiencing tremendous bodily pain, and is in need of a back surgery, and his doctors appointments to lead up to this have been postponed by several weeks, and we barely have a Covid-19 dozen cases in our large city. The system can't handle the influx, and people with and without the virus are suffering already. Let's also consider that if we let it collapse and infect hospitals, how many healthcare workers will die from this, as doctors are often a bit older. Italy has had over 2600 healthcare workers infected. People aren't trying to let their hospitals become a complete disaster inside and out, which is why they're turning away people to begin with.

You have to realize that the 2% or 3% or whatever deathrate is the deathrate when a lot of people are able to get medical care and treatments. The rate could be a lot higher if everyone's sick, and inevitably there would be a bigger collapse if a large percent of the workforce is forced to call out sick. People think that the mild symptoms aren't bad for most people, but this is a respiratory virus. A lot of people have acute asthma and the like, and tons of babies will die from this.

On the bright side, when every person starts to lose elderly people in their family, maybe they'd actually realize this shit is serious.

[remember]

the interesting part is: it was actually what was a little bit british politics until two or three days ago - but they have relatively high death rates compared to relatively low infection rate. mhhh why is that? 

also the example of italy shows how the consequences are if everyone gets sick at the same time. just because we are young and healthy does not mean we can decide for the elderly on whose shoulders we stand. yesterday i even told some youngsters to keep a safety distance from an eighty year old woman who had to do her grocery shopping on her own - not for their safety but for hers, i think that’s the respect we owe them, not bringing them in the situation and not bringing anyone in the situation where we have to take a respiration mask from them because they are older than the next patient coming in, at least after we understood how far it can get. it‘s utterly barbaric and inhumane to treat people with less protection like second class humans as long as we can prevent it - how selfish can it actually get, to even think about it. also not letting these people in italy have died in vain, italians warning for some time now not repeat same mistakes. and by the way it’s not only older people who die from it - even if you think you‘ll make it its not said that you will, if you are lucky in that case maybe someone is willing to help who risks their own life for you. also the longer it takes the closer we get to some kind of cure which will prevent the at least the high death rate, maybe some kind of medication will work -  time is everything in a situation like that - one or two weeks could safe thousands of lifes.

Edited March 18, 2020 by remember

[Forestluv]

@Nightwise This would be dependent on one's goal. It would be like asking "should I allow weeds in my garden to run it's course without restraint". That depends on one's goal. If my goal is to allow the garden to die and free up some time in my life, then yes not weeding is a great idea. Yet if the intention is to maintain a garden, then not weeding is a terrible idea.

If we want to kill off about 500 million people in the world and cause a global depression for a decade, then letting the coronavirus run it's course without restraint is a great idea. I suppose there might be some "good" in this scenario, depending on perspective. 

[remember]

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

@Nightwise This would be dependent on one's goal. It would be like asking "should I allow weeds in my garden to run it's course without restraint". That depends on one's goal. If my goal is to allow the garden to die and free up some time in my life, then yes not weeding is a great idea. Yet if the intention is to maintain a garden, then not weeding is a terrible idea.

If we want to kill off about 500 million people in the world and cause a global depression for a decade, then letting the coronavirus run it's course without restraint is a great idea. I suppose there might be some "good" in this scenario, depending on perspective. 

well, that’s a pretty bad example - because what someone is calling weeds someone else is calling a herb. and what someone else calls a garden another one calls weeds. and it’s pretty unjust to compare a herb to a virus. because one is a healing agent the other one a killing agent. we could compare a herb to a grass though or to a plant which is really killing off all other plants due to not having a natural enemy. so in some sense the comparison lacks a little bit in that dimension. you would definitely not like it if your gras would not be growing, same goes for every other plant. but most people would not like it to eat a poison instead of a herb - that’s probably where most people could agree on. that’s actually why there are throw up reactions to some plants.

Edited March 18, 2020 by remember

[Forestluv]

3 minutes ago, remember said:

well, that’s a pretty bad example - because what someone is calling weeds someone else is calling a herb. and what someone else calls a garden another one calls weeds. and it’s pretty unjust to compare a herb to a virus. because one is a healing agent the other one a killing agent. we could compare a herb to a grass though or to a plant which is really killing off all other plants due to not having a natural enemy. so in some sense the comparison lacks a little bit in that dimension. you would definitely not like it if your gras would not be growing, same goes for every other plant. but most people would not like it to eat a poison instead of a herb - that’s probably where most people could agree on. that’s actually why there are throw up reactions to some plants.

That is my point about relativity.

If someone sees weeds as "herbs", then allowing weeds to run their course without restraint is a good idea.

If someone sees weeds as threatening to the flowers in the garden, then allowing weeks to run their course without restraint is a bad idea.

Similarly: Someone could view the Coronavirus as "bad" or "good". For example, if we allowed the coronavirus to run it's course without restrant, perhaps 1-2 billion people in the world would die. From the perspective of reducing harmful human impact on environment, this would be a good thing. 

[remember]

@Serotoninluv the metaphor is still off. a bad example is not a good or bad one in the moral sense - its just to inaccurate a comparison to use it. at least for the complexity of the corona virus. hitler actually also used heal as a greeting together with victory, there is a possibility people use these comparisons as an excuse to support their also collective egotism.