I noticed you wrote 'until everyone FEELS safe’ and not "until everyone IS safe.' Your wording is spot on. Beyond this OCD desire for safety, the powers that be and their agitators aren't interested in people being safe from an objective standpoint. (Why the government would get to choose what the appropriate standard is another question…
I noticed you wrote 'until everyone FEELS safe’ and not "until everyone IS safe.' Your wording is spot on. Beyond this OCD desire for safety, the powers that be and their agitators aren't interested in people being safe from an objective standpoint. (Why the government would get to choose what the appropriate standard is another question entirely.) It's all about people feeling safe, but those who need to feel safe will never feel safe. The goal posts will always move. Force people to wear masks, and it won't be enough. Stores need to cut down on the number of clients. Cut down on the number of clients, and it's still not enough. Everyone needs to be vaccinated in the shop. If they deny service to unvaccinated, it's not enough. Did all the clients have 17 boosters? And on and on and on.
When the search for the illusive safety becomes a mental illness, we're screwed.
I did write this intentionally, Sophia: Anne-Lise's stance can neither be explained rationally nor does anyone in the piece states anything that may be characterised as such.
That poor woman is extremely afraid, which is partially understandable given her health-related conditions, yet, it can equally neither be explained by her experience with these injections (4 jabs, got Covid anyways) nor the course of disease (a quite 'mild' one, in March). It's a testament to the ability of propaganda, as well as to our incapacity to perceive reality accurately.
So, this is what we get: highly emotionalised hit pieces, with a (perhaps) super-staged illustration, to induce our sympathies with 'those for whom Covid isn't over', as the subtitle in the picture holds.
'We're not safe, until everyone is safe', we're told.
We all have different perceptions of 'safety', even though, as the usefulness of, say, seatbelts shows, there may be certain things that make more sense than these injections.
I noticed you wrote 'until everyone FEELS safe’ and not "until everyone IS safe.' Your wording is spot on. Beyond this OCD desire for safety, the powers that be and their agitators aren't interested in people being safe from an objective standpoint. (Why the government would get to choose what the appropriate standard is another question entirely.) It's all about people feeling safe, but those who need to feel safe will never feel safe. The goal posts will always move. Force people to wear masks, and it won't be enough. Stores need to cut down on the number of clients. Cut down on the number of clients, and it's still not enough. Everyone needs to be vaccinated in the shop. If they deny service to unvaccinated, it's not enough. Did all the clients have 17 boosters? And on and on and on.
When the search for the illusive safety becomes a mental illness, we're screwed.
I did write this intentionally, Sophia: Anne-Lise's stance can neither be explained rationally nor does anyone in the piece states anything that may be characterised as such.
That poor woman is extremely afraid, which is partially understandable given her health-related conditions, yet, it can equally neither be explained by her experience with these injections (4 jabs, got Covid anyways) nor the course of disease (a quite 'mild' one, in March). It's a testament to the ability of propaganda, as well as to our incapacity to perceive reality accurately.
So, this is what we get: highly emotionalised hit pieces, with a (perhaps) super-staged illustration, to induce our sympathies with 'those for whom Covid isn't over', as the subtitle in the picture holds.
'We're not safe, until everyone is safe', we're told.
We all have different perceptions of 'safety', even though, as the usefulness of, say, seatbelts shows, there may be certain things that make more sense than these injections.