Herd immunity

[Sena]

The Great Barrington Declaration has been signed by 4,499 Medical & Public Health Scientists and 8,264 Medical Practitioners,

https://gbdeclaration.org/

"Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.

As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e.  the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection."

"Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity."

Sponsored by:

Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring of infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations.

Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases.

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations.

This is the reputed British Medical Journal:

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3908

From the BMJ article:

"They argue that focused protection would reduce the "collateral harms" of lockdown, including deaths from suicides, reduced childhood immunization, and increases in domestic violence.

Gupta said that widespread starvation was another serious consequence of lockdowns—a concern underscored by a report from the charity Oxfam, which found that border closures, curfews, and travel restrictions had caused breaks in the food supply that threatened to cause 12 000 deaths a day worldwide, exceeding the 10 000 deaths a day recorded from covid-19 in April."

The three scientists are interviewed here:

[Deb]

Great new topic.

To me the lockdowns were a unique response to the "latest pandemic" and I'm still not totally sure why that path was chosen, and if the intentions were pure or there were other motivations. This planet has been through numerous pandemics throughout history, and the reaction to this one was was very different. I can't help but think there is something deeper going on. BTW I watched a few YTs from Dr. B when this all started and I like him a lot.

I haven't had time to read much of The Contagion Myth for the last couple of days, but had a few minutes today and coincidentally read something that feels like souped-up herd immunity (I am playing Devil's advocate once again). Here's another positive take on it by Cowan:

There is now experimental evidence that exosomes made by one organism can be picked up by other organisms (of the same or different species) and cause protective reactions in these new organisms. So it's not every man for himself. Exosomes are the "toxin gobbling messengers" for damaged dna and cells in living organisms. Which is what Cowan feels science is incorrectly telling us is CV19. He says what scientists are identifying in tests as cv positive are actually exosomes, and their existence in people is merely evidence that the body is dealing with some sort of stressor (his reasoning as to why the covid test is not accurate—it's not identifying covid particles in a body, only the presence of exosomes, which are evidence a body is under stressors of various types). He says even the paperwork that comes with the CV19 tests lists 40 different causes of a positive test result, including breast feeding! Even the creator of the CV test says it doesn't necessarily tell you that you are sick. https://off-guardian.org/2020/10/05/pcr-inventor-it-doesnt-tell-you-that-you-are-sick/ Cowan and the article both state that the test is not specific, and drastic inaccuracies occur and are manipulated one way or the other due to what amplification is chosen.

Getting back to herd immunity: One study with mice showed that mice exposed to a toxin (Tylenol), their liver cells increase their production of protective exosomes. Other mice were injected with those exosomes, and instead of getting sick they developed protective responses. So the immunity response was transferred from one group of mice to the other.

Another example was trees and beetle infestation, something I'm very familiar with in Colorado. Pine trees produce chemicals that help the tree survive the beetle exposure, and the chemicals are transmitted through the root system of the trees to others.

His takeway from this is that thanks to exosomes, nature is a cooperative venture. He says "viruses are not here to kill us; in reality they are exosomes whose role is to provide the detoxification package and the communication system that allows us to live a full and healthy existence."

Seems a lot like what Seth said, to me.

Bottom line for me is that if this is a virus, for real, our best hope is for herd immunity. Which I have been criticized for saying. If its not an infectious virus, and instead a reaction to the introduction of 5G to the world, then some people will be able to recover and adapt and share their adaptation with others. And there will be others who are not equipped to adapt for whatever reason, and will not survive.

[LarryH]

This planet has been through numerous pandemics throughout history, and the reaction to this one was was very different.

Actually, during the 1918 Spanish Flu, they used quarantines, encouraged wearing masks, social distancing, closed down public places. President Wilson downplayed the pandemic and thought it was unpatriotic to be concerned about the flu rather than the war. Different cities and states were left to figure out how to deal with the pandemic, with varying success. Wilson ended up getting the flu himself. So pretty much the same.

[Sena]

To me the lockdowns were a unique response to the "latest pandemic" and I'm still not totally sure why that path was chosen, and if the intentions were pure or there were other motivations.

Deb, lots of interesting information in your post. As for the motivation behind lockdowns, if politicians had bought shares in Amazon or other online retailers before ordering the lockdowns, they could have made a packet. That strategy would obviously not have worked in the 1918 pandemic.

[Sena]

Yuval Noah Harari on Coronavirus:

https://www.ft.com/content/19d90308-6858-11ea-a3c9-1fe6fedcca75

"In this time of crisis, we face two particularly important choices. The first is between totalitarian surveillance and citizen empowerment. The second is between nationalist isolation and global solidarity. "

"In their battle against the coronavirus epidemic several governments have already deployed the new surveillance tools. The most notable case is China. By closely monitoring people's smartphones, making use of hundreds of millions of face-recognising cameras, and obliging people to check and report their body temperature and medical condition, the Chinese authorities can not only quickly identify suspected coronavirus carriers, but also track their movements and identify anyone they came into contact with. A range of mobile apps warn citizens about their proximity to infected patients."

"One of the problems we face in working out where we stand on surveillance is that none of us know exactly how we are being surveilled, and what the coming years might bring. Surveillance technology is developing at breakneck speed, and what seemed science-fiction 10 years ago is today old news. As a thought experiment, consider a hypothetical government that demands that every citizen wears a biometric bracelet that monitors body temperature and heart-rate 24 hours a day. The resulting data is hoarded and analysed by government algorithms. The algorithms will know that you are sick even before you know it, and they will also know where you have been, and who you have met. The chains of infection could be drastically shortened, and even cut altogether. Such a system could arguably stop the epidemic in its tracks within days. Sounds wonderful, right?

The downside is, of course, that this would give legitimacy to a terrifying new surveillance system."

The people in power want to maximize the fear response in the general public. The more fearful people are, the more repressive measures they will accept. Those who accept the Seth teachings are in a position to overcome this fear.

[LarryH]

Sena, thanks for your initial post. It describes a more nuanced, strategic path to herd immunity worthy of consideration.

[LarryH]

As a thought experiment, consider a hypothetical government that demands that every citizen wears a biometric bracelet that monitors body temperature and heart-rate 24 hours a day. The resulting data is hoarded and analysed by government algorithms. The algorithms will know that you are sick even before you know it, and they will also know where you have been, and who you have met. The chains of infection could be drastically shortened, and even cut altogether. Such a system could arguably stop the epidemic in its tracks within days. Sounds wonderful, right?

The downside is, of course, that this would give legitimacy to a terrifying new surveillance system."

Who needs thought experiments when we have Apple Watches? I doubt that our (U.S.) government would require everyone to wear an Apple Watch, but if they were free, I bet they would be popular. I could see a program where wearing such a device could be voluntary. That way, the paranoid minority could keep its perceived privacy without appreciably limiting the value of such a program.

[Deb]

Focused protection makes a lot of sense to me, I've heard that from a few sources lately. I've also wondered if we would reach herd immunity naturally by the time a safe and efficient vaccine would be made public.

I was curious about the 1918 pandemic, treatment, how it ended—and found a couple of interesting articles. I wonder how many of those people would not have died if they hadn't taken aspirin, and had access to antibiotics which weren't in use until the 1930s.

"The high case-fatality rate—especially among young adults—during the 1918–1919 influenza pandemic is incompletely understood. Although late deaths showed bacterial pneumonia, early deaths exhibited extremely "wet," sometimes hemorrhagic lungs. The hypothesis presented herein is that aspirin contributed to the incidence and severity of viral pathology, bacterial infection, and death, because physicians of the day were unaware that the regimens (8.0–31.2 g per day) produce levels associated with hyperventilation and pulmonary edema in 33% and 3% of recipients, respectively. Recently, pulmonary edema was found at autopsy in 46% of 26 salicylate-intoxicated adults. Experimentally, salicylates increase lung fluid and protein levels and impair mucociliary clearance. In 1918, the US Surgeon General, the US Navy, and the Journal of the American Medical Association recommended use of aspirin just before the October death spike. If these recommendations were followed, and if pulmonary edema occurred in 3% of persons, a significant proportion of the deaths may be attributable to aspirin."  https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/49/9/1405/301441

It sounds like the 1918 flu petered out due to herd immunity. But apparently didn't completely go away!

"All those pandemics that have happened since — 1957, 1968, 2009 — all those pandemics are derivatives of the 1918 flu," Taubenberger told The Post. "The flu viruses that people get this year, or last year, are all still directly related to the 1918 ancestor." https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/09/01/1918-flu-pandemic-end/

Who needs thought experiments when we have Apple Watches?

And cell phones. A couple of Apple iOS upgrades ago, there was a contact tracing app included in the upgrade that people could not refuse and cannot delete from their phones. There is an on/off switch, but at this point I'm not sure if it's real or just a pacifier. I typically have a "I have nothing to hide" mentality, but this Google/Apple mandatory app ticked me off and so I held off updating my phone as long as I could. Now I see something else new in Settings, "Sensor & Usage Data & Privacy." It's supposedly voluntary. Data is collected about owner interaction with iOS, watchOS devices and software and shared with various studies:

"Usage data is information about how you use and interact with your iOS and watchOS devices and software. For example, this may be information about keyboard usage, the number of messages you send, the number of calls you make and receive, the categories of apps you use, the categories of websites you visit, and when you wear your Apple Watch."

I wonder what "keyboard usage" is about—collecting people's text messages?

[Deb]

And there's an app for everything.

https://www.healthworkscollective.com/health-app-let-your-iphone-take-your-temperature/

[Sena]

This is from the respected medical website, Medscape:

"These are the UK coronavirus stories you need to know about today.

Leaked Vaccination Plan
Doctors in the West Midlands have been asked to prepare for mass coronavirus vaccination as early as next month, the BBC reported, quoting from a leaked document.

Two vaccines are mentioned, codenamed Ambush (!) and Triumph (!). The first needs to be stored at -70C, the second is believed to be the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine that can be stored at room temperature."

https://tinyurl.com/y63phu9e

[leidl]

All, the New York Times is reporting that the White House is embracing the Great Barrington Declaration.  I realize we've got a global group of readers here, but this still seems news worthy of reporting.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/10/13/world/coronavirus-covid?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

There are some interesting details in the article, such as that the Declaration came out of a meeting hosted by a Libertarian-leaning research organization.  Also, two of the scientists behind the Declaration seem to be promoting the controversial idea that only 10-20 percent of a society needs to be infected to reach herd immunity.  It'll be interesting to see if the top U.S. public health officials make a statement about it soon.

[Sena]

All, the New York Times is reporting that the White House is embracing the Great Barrington Declaration.

leidl, thanks for this useful information.

"On a call convened Monday by the White House, two senior administration officials, both speaking anonymously because they were not authorized to give their names, cited an October 4 petition entitled The Great Barrington Declaration, which argues against lockdowns and calls for a reopening of businesses and schools.

"Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health," the declaration states, adding, "The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.""

The two officials were "speaking anonymously", so this is not yet official policy, There needs to be much work done to enable people to overcome their fear of death.

There is another interesting article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/17/health/coronavirus-herd-immunity.html

"But in parts of New York, London and Mumbai, for example, it is not inconceivable that there is already substantial immunity to the coronavirus, scientists said.

"I'm quite prepared to believe that there are pockets in New York City and London which have substantial immunity," said Bill Hanage, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. "What happens this winter will reflect that.""

[Deb]

Embracing? Hmmmm, I'll believe it when I hear it from a reliable source and not an anonymous one, they seem to be a dime a dozen these days. You'd think something like that would be on every news source. Herd immunity seems ideal to me, but not without its problems.

I haven't heard that anyone is calling off the vaccine race that's had billions of dollars pumped into it. And covid cases have been rising lately in some US states.

Just a couple of days ago I read that the famous virologist (lol) Bill Gates said things will not get back to normal until after a SECOND generation of Covid vaccines rolled out and the virus eliminated globally. That made me wonder what we'll do when the next pandemic arrives. We seem to have them every 10 years or so and it's been hinted that a lot of them can be traced back to the Spanish flu, mutated.

https://rt.com/usa/503303-gates-covid-interview/

We sure have a lot of choices of what to believe or not.

[Sena]

Just a couple of days ago I read that the famous virologist (lol) Bill Gates said things will not get back to normal until after a SECOND generation of Covid vaccines rolled out and the virus eliminated globally.

Deb, it appears that many people have little faith in the intelligence of the human body. They think that "artificial" intelligence is better.

[LarryH]

I did not realize until today that the Great Barrington Resolution that has captured the White House's attention includes that  "At least two of the petition's signatories argue that societies may achieve herd immunity when just 10 to 20 percent of their populations have been infected, a proportion most epidemiologists believe is far too small." -NYTimes

[Deb]

Well, I had lunch with my son today. He's 25, a type 1 diabetic. You may recall that a couple of months ago I wrote that he had spent some time with an old roommate who came back to Denver for a visit. They went out, had literally shared some drinks. The roommate went back home, immediately became sick with covid. Full symptoms, not enough for hospitalization, then recovered.

My son, being honest about being exposed, was furloughed from his job as a sous chef, without pay, for two weeks. He never tested positive, never got sick. I was sweating bullets.

Well, today he said he'd gone to a party 3 weeks ago with a bunch of 20-somethings. No protective measures. Sharing shot glasses and joints. The party hostess came down with covid soon after, again full symptoms without hospitalization. No one else became ill.

What are we to believe?

[jbseth]

What are we to believe?

Hi Deb, Hi All,

People can and will believe what they want. I like what Seth has to say.

-jbseth

[Deb]

And yet while my kid believes only in science, he continues to carry on taking chances while he believes what we've been told about the virus. 

[Sena]

I did not realize until today that the Great Barrington Resolution that has captured the White House's attention includes that  "At least two of the petition's signatories argue that societies may achieve herd immunity when just 10 to 20 percent of their populations have been infected, a proportion most epidemiologists believe is far too small." -NYTimes

Larry, quoting just one sentence from an article is a cheap trick, and what is the point of your cartoon? Are you trying to infect people with your fear?
Here is a longer quote from the NY Times article:

"For example, a neighborhood of older people may have little contact with others but succumb to the virus quickly when they encounter it, whereas teenagers may bequeath the virus to dozens of contacts and yet stay healthy themselves. The virus moves slowly in suburban and rural areas, where people live far apart, but zips through cities and households thick with people.

Once such real-world variations in density and demographics are accounted for, the estimates for herd immunity fall. Some researchers even suggested the figure may be in the range of 10 to 20 percent, but they were in the minority.

Assuming the virus ferrets out the most outgoing and most susceptible in the first wave, immunity following a wave of infection is distributed more efficiently than with a vaccination campaign that seeks to protect everyone, said Tom Britton, a mathematician at Stockholm University.

His model puts the threshold for herd immunity at 43 percent — that is, the virus cannot hang on in a community after that percentage of residents has been infected and recovered.

Still, that means many residents of the community will have been sickened or have died, a high price to pay for herd immunity. And experts like Dr. Hanage cautioned that even a community that may have reached herd immunity cannot afford to be complacent.



The virus may still flare up here and there, even if its overall spread is stymied. It's also unclear how long someone who has recovered may be immune, and for how long.
.
Health officials screened residents of the Koliwada neighborhood of Mumbai in April.Credit...Atul Loke for The New York Times
Virus-Resistant Communities?
The coronavirus crashed this year's Purim celebrations in the Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods of New York City, tearing through the parades and masquerades in Brooklyn on March 9 and 10.

Schools and synagogues soon shut down to quell the spread, but it was too late. By April, thousands in the Brooklyn communities were infected, and hundreds had died.

"It's like a black hole in my memory because of how traumatic it was," said Blimi Marcus, a nurse practitioner who lives in Borough Park, which was hit hard by the virus.

But all that has changed now, Ms. Marcus added: "The general feeling is one of complacency, that somehow we've all had it and we're safe."

Is it possible that some of these communities have herd immunity? In some clinics, up to 80 percent of people tested had antibodies to the virus. The highest prevalence was found among teenage boys.

But people at clinics are more likely to be showing symptoms and therefore more likely to be infected, said Wan Yang, an epidemiologist at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health in New York. Random household surveys would probably find lower rates — but still well above the 21 percent average reported for New York City, she said.



Researchers in Mumbai conducted just such a random household survey, knocking on every fourth door — or, if it was locked, the fifth — and took blood for antibody testing. They found a startling disparity between the city's poorest neighborhoods and its more affluent enclaves. Between 51 and 58 percent of residents in poor areas had antibodies, versus 11 to 17 percent elsewhere in the city.

The lowest-income residents are packed tightly together, share toilets, and have little access to masks. "These factors contributed to a silent infection spread," said Dr. Jayanthi Shastri, a microbiologist at Kasturba Hospital in Mumbai who led the work.

Most researchers are wary of concluding that the hardest-hit neighborhoods of Brooklyn, or even those in blighted areas of Mumbai, have reached herd immunity or will be spared future outbreaks.

But models like Dr. Britton's hint that it's not impossible. Other researchers have suggested, controversially, that herd immunity can be achieved at rates of immunity as low as 10 or 20 percent — and that entire countries may already have achieved that goal.

Criticism trailed Sunetra Gupta, a theoretical epidemiologist at Oxford University, after a widely circulated interview in which she said that London and New York may already have reached herd immunity because of variability among people, combined with a theoretical immunity to common cold coronaviruses that may protect against the new one.

"That could be the explanation for why you don't see a resurgence in places like New York," she said.

Most experts reject that notion. Several studies have shown that certain immune cells produced following infection with seasonal coronaviruses may also recognize the new coronavirus.

But "where is the evidence that it's protective?" asked Natalie Dean, a biostatistician at the University of Florida.

These cities have not returned to pre-pandemic levels of activity, other experts noted.

"We are still nowhere near back to normal in our daily behavior," said Virginia Pitzer, a mathematical epidemiologist at the Yale School of Public Health. "To think that we can just stop doing all that and go back to normal and not see a rise in cases I think is wrong, is incorrect."

A second wave might also hit groups or neighborhoods that were spared by the first, and still wreak havoc, she said. Immunity is a patchwork quilt in New York, for instance: Antibodies were present in 68 percent of people visiting a clinic in the Corona neighborhood of Queens, for instance, but in just 13 percent of those tested at a clinic in the Cobble Hill section of Brooklyn.

But another group, led by the mathematician Gabriela Gomes of the University of Strathclyde in Britain, accounted for variations within a society in its model and found that Belgium, England, Portugal and Spain have herd immunity thresholds in the range of 10 to 20 percent.

"At least in countries we applied it to, we could never get any signal that herd immunity thresholds are higher," Dr. Gomes said. "I think it's good to have this horizon that it may be just a few more months of pandemic."

Other experts urged caution, saying these models are flawed, as all models are, and that they oversimplify conditions on the ground.

Jeffrey Shaman, an epidemiologist at Columbia University, said it wasn't clear to him that Dr. Gomes's model offered only one possible solution. And he was suspicious of the big ranges among the four countries.

"I think we'd be playing with fire if we pretended we're done with this," Dr. Shaman said.

The new models offer food for thought, he and other experts said, but should not be used to set policy.

"Mathematically, it's certainly possible to have herd immunity at these very, very low levels," said Carl Bergstrom, an infectious disease expert at the University of Washington in Seattle. "Those are just our best guesses for what the numbers should look like."

"But," he added, "they're just exactly that, guesses."

Borough Park in Brooklyn, N.Y., late last month. Fewer than 1 percent of people tested at neighborhood clinics in Brooklyn over the past eight weeks have had the virus.
Borough Park in Brooklyn, N.Y., late last month. Fewer than 1 percent of people tested at neighborhood clinics in Brooklyn over the past eight weeks have had the virus.Credit...Brittainy Newman for The New York Times
Imperfect Immunity
But what about immunity at levels lower than those needed for herd immunity?

"Definitely the disease would not spread as well if it gets back into New York," said Joel Miller, a mathematical modeler at La Trobe University in Australia. "The same level of behavior change will have more effect on the disease now than it did four months ago."

Thinking of a city or country as composed of subgroups, demarcated by age, race and level of social activity, might also help governments protect those with the least immunity.

That perspective also might help put a renewed focus on groups who require the higher levels of immunity, because of greater exposure levels and other inequities, including Black and Latino residents, said Dr. Manoj Jain, an infectious disease expert at Emory University. "That's where this info is very useful," he said.

The models also suggest a vaccination strategy: Rather than uniformly vaccinate all groups, governments could identify and immunize those most likely to be exposed in "superspreader" events.


"Getting those people vaccinated first can lead to the greatest benefit," said Dr. Michael Mina, an immunologist at Harvard University. "That alone could lead to herd immunity."

Vaccination schemes for other pathogens have successfully exploited this approach. For example, when children were given the pneumococcal vaccine in the early 2000s, rates of bacterial pneumonia in the elderly rapidly dropped because of a "herd effect."

Vaccines that offer just 50 percent protection are considered to be moderately effective, but at that efficiency, even a low herd immunity target would require that a large proportion of the population be immunized, Dr. Bergstrom noted.

If there are early reports of side effects that may scare away some people, he said, "we'd do well to start thinking about all that now."

Back in Brooklyn, fewer than 1 percent of people tested at neighborhood clinics over the past eight weeks were infected with the virus. But there are still handfuls of cases, Ms. Marcus said, adding that her 10-year-old niece was in quarantine because a counselor at her day camp had tested positive.

"Sometimes that's all you need, right?" she said. "I'm still hoping we don't see what we had in March and April, but I'm not so sure that we've seen the end of it.""

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/17/health/coronavirus-herd-immunity.html

The fact is that EVERYBODY is guessing in this situation, including those in favor of Draconiam lockdowns which could lead to poverty and starvation.

[LarryH]

Larry, quoting just one sentence from an article is a cheap trick, and what is the point of your cartoon? Are you trying to infect people with your fear?

Sena, I did not have access to the entire article, just a one-paragraph synopsis. Thank you for posting the entire article, which did not change my opinion or the accuracy of the detail that I quoted. So not sure how the quote was a cheap trick. As for your second snide remark, I posted the cartoon as entertainment. It listed commonly believed falsehoods (at least in the U.S.), some of which have literally resulted in people dying or behaving in ways that endangered themselves or others. As I have said here before, I feel very safe, so I have no "fear" with which to "infect people". If you believe any of the statements listed on the tombstones, maybe we could discuss those.

[Sena]

It listed commonly believed falsehoods (at least in the U.S.), some of which have literally resulted in people dying or behaving in ways that endangered themselves or others.

Larry, sorry may be it was not a cheap trick, but you imagined that one sentence would enlighten readers even though that was the only bit of the article you had read?
When you say falsehoods resulted in people dying, that indicates that you are clinging on to a false belief. Those people chose to die in that way. When you post a picture of tombstones associated with Covid 19, that would be quite successful in arousing fear in some people.

[LarryH]

Larry, sorry may be it was not a cheap trick, but you imagined that one sentence would enlighten readers even though that was the only bit of the article you had read?
When you say falsehoods resulted in people dying, that indicates that you are clinging on to a false belief. Those people chose to die in that way. When you post a picture of tombstones associated with Covid 19, that would be quite successful in arousing fear in some people.

Sena, please note that in my reply #5 on October 9, I thanked you for your initial post in this thread. My more recent quote from the NYTimes was new info to me and that was part of the thinking in the proposal described in your initial post. The more complete article that you later posted did nothing to dispute that, in fact it supported it. So my quote was not out of context.

The fact that the cartoon shows tombstones cannot possibly scare anybody. Most people would read the epitaphs and recognize them as stupid beliefs that they do not accept. If someone were to be in agreement with any of the epitaphs, they would also not be scared, maybe just pissed off that some cartoonist is challenging their belief that "the virus is a hoax" or whatever. There are enough examples of people who previously believed some of these things and later got the virus and said they had been stupid, including former New Jersey governor Chris Christie.

[jbseth]

And yet while my kid believes only in science, he continues to carry on.

Hi Deb, Hi All,

Yes, and while your son says he only believes in science, maybe he doesn't believe that COVID is as bad as everyone says, or maybe he believes in his immunity from COVID.

I suspect that if he strongly felt that he really would catch COVID, then he never would have gone to the party. People who are "germaphobes", people who are "fearful" of catching COVID, often do not participate in activities, that they consider to be high risk activities.   


This reminds me of some of the people, I've known who were in the Vietnam war. Many of them have told me that they felt that they were "invincible", that nobody could kill them.  I suspect that these beliefs worked for them.

Here's what Seth says about viruses in NOME, Ch 6, S840. To me, this makes a lot of sense given that your son attended this party, with many people, no masks, etc. and while one person did develop COVID like symptoms nobody else did.



NOME, Ch 6, S840.

(Vigorously:) You could not live without viruses, nor could your biological reality as you know it now exist.

[...]

(9:38.) Give us a moment ... The viruses in the body have a social, cooperative existence. Their effects become deadly only under certain conditions. The viruses must be triggered into destructive activity, and this happens only at a certain point, when the individual involved is actively seeking either death or a crisis situation biologically.

[... 1 paragraph ...]

Now: In the same way that a member of such a society can go [askew], blow his stack, go overboard, commit antisocial acts, so in the same fashion such a person can instead trigger the viruses, wreck their biological social order, so that some of them suddenly become deadly, or run [amok]. So of course the resulting diseases are infectious. To that degree they are social diseases. It is not so much that a virus, say, suddenly turns destructive — though it does — as it is that the entire cooperative structure within which all the viruses are involved becomes insecure and threatened.





Deb, I think it was you who mentioned that you had a dream, as I recall, I think it was about your son, and in this dream, you were told that this virus is not nearly as communicable as everyone believes.



Here's a thought. Think about how many people the President of the US, must meet and interface with every day of his life.

How long did President Trump, go around without wearing a mask?  Yes, he eventually caught COVID. But this certainly didn't happen overnight?


-jbseth

[Sena]

Yes, and while your son says he only believes in science, maybe he doesn't believe that COVID is as bad as everyone says, or maybe he believes in his immunity from COVID.

Hi jbseth, Deb, I am sure Deb's optimism rubs off on her son, even though he claims to believe only in science.

The viruses must be triggered into destructive activity, and this happens only at a certain point, when the individual involved is actively seeking either death or a crisis situation biologically.

Thanks for highlighting an important Seth teaching.

[Deb]

Yes, and while your son says he only believes in science, maybe he doesn't believe that COVID is as bad as everyone says, or maybe he believes in his immunity from COVID.

I suspect that if he strongly felt that he really would catch COVID, then he never would have gone to the party. People who are "germaphobes", people who are "fearful" of catching COVID, often do not participate in activities, that they consider to be high risk activities.   

Well I have to agree. But I also think most young men feel they are invincible and do some pretty risky stuff. I can share a very recent and disasterous example of that (not my son, thankfully). And while he rolls his eyes at me when I bring up Seth, I do remember him being a young teen headed out with his skateboard one day. I said, "be safe." He said, "Mom, stop saying that. Whenever you say that to me, I have an accident of some sort." So I changed it to "have a great time," recalling something I'd read about parenting, where if you say "don't step in the puddle" the kid doesn't hear the "don't" part. Not exactly the same, but still a psychological message there.

What he said that day really stuck with me, he really does have a profoundly intuitive side, and so since then I've become more conscious and careful about what I say to people, and the messages I convey.

And what Seth said about viruses in the quotes you provided sounds a lot like what Dr. Cowan says in his book, where he feels viruses are misunderstood, not what we think they are.

[Sena]

Is Covid 19 becoming less virulent?
This is by no means certain, but is a possibility. This is from the respected medical website Medscape:

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/934204#vp_3

"The big question now is: What happens next? One popular theory, endorsed by some experts, is that viruses often start off harming their hosts, but evolve toward a more benign coexistence.  After all, many of the viruses we know of that trigger severe problems in a new host species cause mild or no disease in the host they originally came from. And from the virus's perspective, this theory asserts, hosts that are less sick are more likely to be moving around, meeting others and spreading the infection onward. 

"I believe that viruses tend to become less pathogenic," says Burtram Fielding, a coronavirologist at the University of the Western Cape, South Africa. "The ultimate aim of a pathogen is to reproduce, to make more of itself. Any pathogen that kills the host too fast will not give itself enough time to reproduce." If SARS-CoV-2 can spread faster and further by killing or severely harming fewer of the people it infects, we might expect that over time, it will become less harmful — or, as virologists term it, less virulent.

"This kind of evolutionary gentling may be exactly what happened more than a century ago to one of the other human coronaviruses, known as OC43, Fielding suggests. Today, OC43 is one of four coronaviruses that account for up to a third of cases of the common cold (and perhaps occasionally more severe illness). But Fielding and a few others think it could also have been the virus behind a worldwide pandemic, usually ascribed to influenza, that began in 1890 and killed more than a million people worldwide, including Queen Victoria's grandson and heir.

"Other evolutionary biologists disagree. The pandemic certainly faded as more people became immune, but there's no solid evidence that OC43 itself evolved from highly virulent to mostly benign over the last century, they say. Even if it did, that does not mean SARS-CoV-2 will follow the same trajectory. "You can't just say it's going to become nicer, that somehow a well-adapted pathogen doesn't harm its host. Modern evolutionary biology, and a lot of data, shows that doesn't have to be true. It can get nicer, and it can get nastier," says Andrew Read, an evolutionary microbiologist at Penn State University. (Holmes is blunter: "Trying to predict virulence evolution is a mug's game," he says.)

"With the new coronavirus, Parrish says, "we're sort of in that 1918 period where the virus is spreading fast in a naive population." But that will change as more people either catch Covid-19 or are vaccinated (if and when that becomes possible) and develop some level of immunity. "There's no question that once the population is largely immune, the virus will die down," Parrish says.

The question is how long that immunity will last: for a lifetime, like smallpox, or just a few years, like flu? In part, that will depend on whether the vaccine induces a permanent antibody response or just a temporary one. But it also depends on whether the virus can change to evade the antibodies generated by the vaccine. Although coronaviruses don't accumulate mutations as fast as flu viruses, they do still change. And at least one, which causes bronchitis in chickens, has evolved new variants that aren't covered by previous vaccines. But at this point, no one knows what to expect from SARS-CoV-2."

The following is from an article in the UK magazine "The Spectator"

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-coronavirus-immunity-riddle

"Yes, we see a rise now in test positivity rates in some areas and, with it, talk of a 'second wave'. But there is, as yet, no second wave in hospital admissions, here or abroad. This suggests we are missing something fundamental. Could it be that the virus has significantly changed since the beginning of the pandemic? As I argued in these pages at the start of lockdown, RNA viruses change all the time and are likely to become less virulent with time. A recent study of 131 patients from Singapore has revealed a significant mutation: a less dangerous subtype of the virus with a shorter RNA molecule.

"There is still so much we do not even begin to understand, but one thing has been clear for months: this virus is similar to other viruses we have lived with for generations. And there is very little evidence to support the benefits of the lockdown measures.

The case for returning to normal life is simple: the social, economic and public health costs of not doing so are far greater. With the Covid hospital cases in Britain now running at 96 per cent below their peak, we can reasonably ask whether the overall situation might not be as bleak as we first feared and whether now is the time to get the country moving again."

(WRITTEN BY
Dr John Lee, a former professor of pathology and NHS consultant pathologist.)

[LarryH]

But there is, as yet, no second wave in hospital admissions, here or abroad.

In the U.S., we are in the third wave in both cases and hospitalizations, as can be seen in the following graph.

The ratio of hospitalizations to cases is dropping. The virus is now hitting the less populous, more rural states, those that largely avoided the first wave. In a different chart, not shown, the number of covid deaths in the U.S. has not seen a third wave, being relatively stable since early September, likely due to better treatments as more is learned over time. Even if the virus has become less virulent, I think treatments are the greater influence.

[Deb]

I thought the Medscape article was GREAT. Lots of good, logical points, especially these:

The big question now is: What happens next? One popular theory, endorsed by some experts, is that viruses often start off harming their hosts, but evolve toward a more benign coexistence.  After all, many of the viruses we know of that trigger severe problems in a new host species cause mild or no disease in the host they originally came from. And from the virus's perspective, this theory asserts, hosts that are less sick are more likely to be moving around, meeting others and spreading the infection onward....

The ultimate aim of a pathogen is to reproduce, to make more of itself. Any pathogen that kills the host too fast will not give itself enough time to reproduce.

I've been wondering about that, from our F1 perspective—what is the purpose of a virus? What is it's goal? The ultimate aim of anything living is to reproduce, unlike any of the inanimate objects in my day to day life. Actually, what IS a virus? If it's not even a living organism like bacteria, why or how does have a "goal" and a need to reproduce? I feel everything in our existence has a purpose. Killing a host is completely counterproductive. Per Wiki:

"A virus is a submicroscopic infectious agent that replicates only inside the living cells of an organism.[1] Viruses infect all types of life forms, from animals and plants to microorganisms, including bacteria and archaea."

So WHAT IS IT, if it's not a living organism? Is it just pure energy? With or without consciousness? Why do we have viruses at all? Here's an article that says viruses can be beneficial, which Seth has said as well.

"Viruses, like bacteria, can be important beneficial microbes in human health and in agriculture, researchers say, following a review of the current literature on beneficial viruses."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150430170750.htm

Some of my favorite plants are variegated, which I've read are caused by viruses.
https://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/pdf/10.1094/PDIS-11-11-0928-FE

"Viruses appear to be "the bad guys," and as a rule you think of them separately, as for example the smallpox virus. There are overall affiliations in which viruses take part, however, in which delicate balances are maintained biologically. Each body contains countless viruses that could be deadly at any given time and under certain conditions. These — and I am putting it as simply as possible — take turns being active or inactive within the body, in accordance with the body's overall condition. Viruses that are "deadly" in certain stages are not in others, and in those later stages they react biologically in quite beneficial ways, adding to the body's stability by bringing about necessary changes, say, in cellular activities that are helpful at given rates of action. These in turn trigger other cellular changes, again of a beneficial nature."
—NoME Chapter 6: Session 840, March 12, 1979

"You are not aware of the inner army of viruses within the body that protect it constantly. Host and virus both need each other, and both are part of the same life cycle."
—NoME Chapter 6: Session 840, March 12, 1979

"thoughts move far quicker of course than viruses. The action of the virus follows the thought. Each thought is registered biologically. Basically (underlined), when you have an immunity to a disease you have a mental immunity."
—NoME Chapter 6: Session 841, March 14, 1979

[Sena]

So WHAT IS IT, if it's not a living organism? Is it just pure energy? With or without consciousness? Why do we have viruses at all? Here's an article that says viruses can be beneficial, which Seth has said as well.

"Viruses, like bacteria, can be important beneficial microbes in human health and in agriculture, researchers say, following a review of the current literature on beneficial viruses."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150430170750.htm

Deb, that Science Daily article is a great find:

"Mammalian viruses can also provide immunity against bacterial pathogens. Gamma-herpesviruses boost mice resistance to Listeria monocytogenes, an important human gastrointestinal pathogen, and to Yersinia pestis, otherwise known as plague. "Humans are often infected with their own gamma-herpes viruses, and it is conceivable that these could provide similar benefits," said Roossinck.

Latent herpesviruses also arm natural killer cells, an important component of the immune system, which kill both mammalian tumor cells, and cells that are infected with pathogenic viruses.

The gastrointestinal tracts of mammals are plush with viruses. So far, little is known about how these viruses affect their hosts, but their sheer number and diversity suggest that they have important functions, said Roossinck. For example, GI viruses that infect bacteria--known as phage--may modulate expression of bacterial genes involved in host digestion.

Recent research shows that bacteriophage stick to the mucus membranes of many metazoans (the class "Animalia," which includes everything from worms to wombats). And mucus membranes, Roossinck points out, are the points of entry for many bacterial pathogens, suggesting that they provide the first line of defense against invading bacteria."

It is possible that Covid 19 is protecting us from something us from something more dangerous. Bacterial infections are no joke these days, because the discovery of new antibiotics has ground to a halt.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41693229

"You are not aware of the inner army of viruses within the body that protect it constantly. Host and virus both need each other, and both are part of the same life cycle."
—NoME Chapter 6: Session 840, March 12, 1979

Very few science students would have been taught this in 1979, and Jane did not have much of a background in science. This statement is yet more evidence that the Seth teachings were NOT fabricated by Jane.

The scientist Marilyn J. Roossinck has writen this article in the prestigious journal "Nature":

"The good viruses: viral mutualistic symbioses"

https://www.nature.com/articles/nrmicro2491

"Although viruses are most often studied as pathogens, many are beneficial to their hosts, providing essential functions in some cases and conditionally beneficial functions in others. Beneficial viruses have been discovered in many different hosts, including bacteria, insects, plants, fungi and animals. How these beneficial interactions evolve is still a mystery in many cases but, as discussed in this Review, the mechanisms of these interactions are beginning to be understood in more detail."

The full article is only available to subscribers, but it appears that Seth was 40 years ahead of scientists!!

[Deb]

I had a weird thought today that viruses may be nature's (translate as natural processes in F1) way to update the human body's operating system (relying on my computer experience with software updates). I'm continuing to explore this idea, I just thought I'd drop that idea into the mix. Most, maybe all, modern medical professionals would say that our bodies are always steeped in bacteria and viruses, a symbiotic relationship until the apple cart is upset in some way. What if viruses are not "demons" that are intent on killing their hosts, but are instead serve a purpose to benefit and support physical existence?

[T.M.]

Hi All,

Hi Deb,

I think that's the perfect analogy. I think viruses and bacteria are updates to our bodies operating system. They allow us to interface with whatever bacteria is currently in/on the planet at any given time.

[Sena]

I had a weird thought today that viruses may be nature's (translate as natural processes in F1) way to update the human body's operating system (relying on my computer experience with software updates). I'm continuing to explore this idea, I just thought I'd drop that idea into the mix. Most, maybe all, modern medical professionals would say that our bodies are always steeped in bacteria and viruses, a symbiotic relationship until the apple cart is upset in some way. What if viruses are not "demons" that are intent on killing their hosts, but are instead serve a purpose to benefit and support physical existence?

Deb, I think you are right on the mark regarding the role of viruses. There is a lot of research being done on the role of viruses in human evolution. There is a very long article here which I have only glanced though:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7159740/

"Our ancestors were liable to infection with a number of viruses throughout our evolutionary history. While our most ancient and coevolving DNA viruses were well‐adapted to hominids and unlikely to cause more than persistent mild infections, a variety of emerging RNA viruses undoubtedly affected hominids, some as isolated zoonotic infections incapable of being transmitted directly to other hominids, and others as new acquisitions via interspecies transmission. Some of these adapted to their new host and perhaps were shared with other species.

Even the earliest hominids carried endogenous retroviruses capable of acting as insertional mutagens. The existence of unique human HERV‐K sequences suggests that retrotranspositional events since the human‐ape divergence may have helped mold the hominid genome. The tendency for proviral genes to be expressed in placental and embryonic tissues suggests the possibility of changes in gene expression affecting development.

Until human and associated animal populations increased in size and density in the Neolithic, specific viruses were unlikely to have selected for balanced polymorphisms like those conferring resistance to falciparum malaria. In combination with other infectious agents, however, viruses must have contributed to selection pressure maintaining a strong immune response (including MHC diversity) and favoring changes in cell surface receptors. Given the range of environments Pliocene hominids exploited and the likelihood they engaged in scavenging or hunting, they were probably exposed to a wide variety of zoonotic and emerging parasites."

This is the key passage in the quote: "Even the earliest hominids carried endogenous retroviruses capable of acting as insertional mutagens. The existence of unique human HERV‐K sequences suggests that retrotranspositional events since the human‐ape divergence may have helped mold the hominid genome."

What it means is that viruses may have helped "mold" the human genome (operating system).

[jbseth]

I had a weird thought today that viruses may be nature's (translate as natural processes in F1) way to update the human body's operating system (relying on my computer experience with software updates). I'm continuing to explore this idea, I just thought I'd drop that idea into the mix. Most, maybe all, modern medical professionals would say that our bodies are always steeped in bacteria and viruses, a symbiotic relationship until the apple cart is upset in some way. What if viruses are not "demons" that are intent on killing their hosts, but are instead serve a purpose to benefit and support physical existence?

Hi Deb, Hi All,

What I get from Seth, from Session 840, on viruses, is this. Sometimes, viruses are beneficial and helpful. However, sometimes, when they're triggered into destructive activity, they can be deadly. So while they're not always "deadly", (and when they aren't, they can be beneficial), they can be "deadly" however.


NOME, Ch 6, S840:

(Vigorously:) You could not live without viruses, nor could your biological reality as you know it now exist.

(Pause.) Viruses appear to be "the bad guys," and as a rule you think of them separately, as for example the smallpox virus. There are overall affiliations in which viruses take part, however, in which delicate balances are maintained biologically. Each body contains countless viruses that could be deadly at any given time and under certain conditions. These — and I am putting it as simply as possible — take turns being active or inactive within the body, in accordance with the body's overall condition. Viruses that are "deadly" in certain stages are not in others, and in those later stages they react biologically in quite beneficial ways, adding to the body's stability by bringing about necessary changes, say, in cellular activities that are helpful at given rates of action. These in turn trigger other cellular changes, again of a beneficial nature.

[... 1 paragraph ...]

(9:38.) Give us a moment ... The viruses in the body have a social, cooperative existence. Their effects become deadly only under certain conditions. The viruses must be triggered into destructive activity, and this happens only at a certain point, when the individual involved is actively seeking either death or a crisis situation biologically.


-jbseth

[Sena]

I wonder whether this lady is a Seth reader:

https://www.ladbible.com/news/uk-woman-83-says-she-doesnt-give-a-sod-about-tier-3-restrictions-20201022?source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR3dAB9RAJvlW9Zi57MNb43ts0fvZ2F7jy4WDkFYJYo1rkgx_RIgo6n56OQ

[Sena]

The viruses must be triggered into destructive activity, and this happens only at a certain point, when the individual involved is actively seeking either death or a crisis situation biologically.

jbseth, thanks for that Seth quote.

[Sena]

Death probably due to self-isolation, a sad case:

"An Indiana student has been found dead in her dorm room where she was quarantining after testing positive for coronavirus, according to local media reports.

Bethany Nesbitt, 20, was found in her halls of residence at Grace College in Winona Lake on 30 October.

In a statement issued by the college, health officials said that Nesbitt's death wasn't only due to Covid-19, although the virus was a factor.

Coroner Tony Ciriello said: "After a complete investigation and autopsy, the cause of death has been ruled natural due to a pulmonary embolus that had not been previously detected."

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/student-with-covid-found-dead-after-self-isolating-in-dorm-room/ar-BB1aIxBO?ocid=msedgntp

If you are self-isolating and lie in bed day and night, you could get a blood clot in your leg veins. The clot could get detached and go into your lungs, causing what is called a pulmonary embolism. This seems to have been the cause of death in this sad case.

[jbseth]

Death probably due to self-isolation

Hi Sena, Hi All,

Sena. I'm curious. Do you really think that this is true? Do you really think that Bethany probably died from self-isolation?  If you do, I don't have an issue with it, I'm just trying to understand what you believe here.


Generally speaking, I tend to believe something very different. I tend to believe what Seth says in Session 801 in "Mass Events".


NOME, Ch 1, S801:

It is not understood that before life an individual decides to live. A self is not simply the accidental personification of the body's biological mechanism. Each person born desires to be born. He dies when that desire no longer operates. No epidemic or illness or natural disaster — or stray bullet from a murderer's gun — will kill a person who does not want to die.



Given what Seth says above, I think we can safely assume that he also meant that, "No blood clot as a result of self-isolation, will kill a person who does not want to die".


-jbseth

[jbseth]

Hi Sena, Hi All,

I'm not trying to be oppositional here.

On occasion, I sometimes find myself believing that people die of unfortunate circumstances, (blot clots, aneurysms, murder, COVID, and natural disasters).  Then again, at other times, I seem to recall that Seth says things like, "There are no accidents" or something like what he says above, that nobody dies who does not want to die.


For me, this is kind of like the reality of Seth's idea that there is no time, or all time is simultaneous, and yet, if you don't pay your taxes on time, for example, there are some consequences to this.

It is also kind of like the reality of his idea that "gravity" is just a root assumption of this reality, and yet, if you jump out of a 10 story window, you probably are going to seriously hurt yourself.


It seems that in addition to understanding Seth's ideas, we also need to understand, when and how to appropriately apply them to any given situation in this physical world reality life? It seems to me, that I don't always remember this idea, nor do I necessarily always get this right.


-jbseth

[Deb]

Then again, at other times, I seem to recall that Seth says things like, "There are no accidents" or something like what he says above, that nobody dies who does not want to die.

Yep, that's what Seth said but we Seth folks are straddling two systems, Framework 1 where we go through these tests and dramas, and being told what's really behind all of this from Seth. While I take comfort in the concept that the personality survives, and we choose our how and when deaths, we are still here in this reality. So I too feel the girl's death was sad, regardless of her choosing the how and when. Because as a human (and mother) I see a young person whose life was really just getting started and was cut short, and she died alone. There are a lot of things we will hopefully learn from covid, that go well beyond how to treat the illness itself.

A SIL of mine told me about a friend of hers that has a brain tumor and needed surgery. The friend and her husband had to fly somewhere to get the surgery as it was a serious situation and she had to go to a specific hospital that could handle it properly. They were actually getting ready to head to the airport and got a call from the remote hospital that her surgery was cancelled because she, and her husband, both tested positive for covid. They are probably in their 60s, felt fine, and could not believe it. They went to a local facility to get retested and the results were negative. They then asked if they could do a blood test, because they were concerned about the standard test's accuracy. They also came back negative. I don't know what happened to them after that, but I've heard a lot of cases where people were denied much needed medical care because a lot of procedures were considered non-essential. Such as a friend's chemotherapy—she was told no mo' chemo because they had to shut down the facility during covid. It's almost like saying some people are non-essential.

I wonder how many people died during this pandemic for reasons like the above.

[Sena]

They then asked if they could do a blood test, because they were concerned about the standard test's accuracy. They also came back negative. I don't know what happened to them after that, but I've heard a lot of cases where people were denied much needed medical care because a lot of procedures were considered non-essential. Such as a friend's chemotherapy—she was told no mo' chemo because they had to shut down the facility during covid. It's almost like saying some people are non-essential.

I wonder how many people died during this pandemic for reasons like the above.

Deb, yes it is a pandemic of fear. My wife was suffering from a very painful and swollen ankle and leg for 2 months. She was offered an appointment with a Professor of Rheumatology in London, but this was a telephone appointment!! My wife and I tried our best to describe the problem on the phone, but how can something be diagnosed on the phone? Fortunately we managed to get her seen by a rheumatologist at another hospital, who instantly diagnosed gout and started her on the correct treatment. I think my Seth reading helped us to create this reality.

[jbseth]

Yep, that's what Seth said but we Seth folks are straddling two systems, Framework 1 where we go through these tests and dramas, and being told what's really behind all of this from Seth. While I take comfort in the concept that the personality survives, and we choose our how and when deaths, we are still here in this reality. So I too feel the girl's death was sad, regardless of her choosing the how and when. Because as a human (and mother) I see a young person whose life was really just getting started and was cut short, and she died alone. There are a lot of things we will hopefully learn from covid, that go well beyond how to treat the illness itself

Hi Deb, Hi Sena, Hi All,

Perhaps, I should explain myself here.

First of all, I'm not trying to tell anyone, what they can and can't view as a sad story. Nor am I trying to tell anyone that they are somehow "wrong" if they view this or anything else as a sad story. I watch the movie "Titanic" with Leonardo and Kate, and man the tears just flow. What a sad story that was. True, I doubt that the character "Rose", played by Kate Winslet ever actually existed, but every time I watch that movie, it has a powerful impact on me and my emotions.


In reply 35, Sena, tells us the story of Bethany Nesbitt, the 20 year old college student who got COVID, then self-isolated and then apparently died alone, as a result of a pulmonary embolus. Yes, I would agree, this really does appear to be the sad story of a "young person whose life was really just getting started and was cut short, and she died alone".


I would agree, this does come across as a sad story when I view this story from a certain perspective.  But when I view this story from this perspective, it's often because I'm not really thinking about what Seth has to say about these types of things.


What specific Seth teaching am I talking referring to here? Here's some of them:

Seth tells us that, "You create your own reality" (NOME, Ch 5, S830).

He also tells us that, "No epidemic or illness or natural disaster — or stray bullet from a murderer's gun — will kill a person who does not want to die." (NOME, Ch 1, S801).

Along with this, he also says, "This does not mean that such individuals make a conscious decision to die, in your terms: But such decisions are often semiconscious (intently)." (NOME, Ch 1, S801).


Then, in this very same session he says the following which might be what's taking place here in this story about Bethany:

"[...] Often, for example, a person wanting to die originally intended to experience only a portion of earth life, say childhood. This purpose would be entwined with the parents' intent. Such a son or daughter might be born, for instance, through a woman who wanted to experience childbirth but who did not necessarily want to encounter the years of child-raising, for her own reasons.

[... 1 paragraph ...]

Such a mother would attract a consciousness who desired, perhaps, to reexperience childhood but not adulthood, or who might teach the mother lessons sorely needed. Such a child might naturally die at 10 or 12, or earlier."



Maybe in Bethany's life plan, she never wanted to live much beyond her teenage years.




Then, in a different session, Seth tells us the following:

"As long as you believe that either good events or bad ones are meted out by a personified God as the reward or punishment for your actions, or on the other hand that events are largely meaningless, chaotic, subjective knots in the tangled web of an accidental Darwinian world, then you cannot consciously understand your own creativity, or play the role in the universe that you are capable of playing as individuals or as a species. You will instead live in a world where events happen to you, in which you must do sacrifice to the gods of one kind or another, or see yourselves as victims of an uncaring nature." (NOME, Ch 5, S830)



So what's really going on here? Was Bethany a victim of a combination of COVID and a pulmonary embolus? A victim whose life was cut short and died alone?  Was she an innocent victim of a cruel world where things like Covid and embolus's just randomly happen to people? When viewed from this perspective, I can definitely see how this story is a very sad story.

Or did she perhaps create her reality, like all of the rest of us. Did she create her reality and in doing so, did she also perhaps chose to no longer live, perhaps because she was now past her teens. Was this perhaps all a part of her planned existence for this specific life?

When viewed from this perspective, this story doesn't seem to come across as so much of a sad story. 


Yes, I do agree that even when viewed from a perspective of Seth's teachings, there are elements here that do appear to be very sad. For one, not everyone understands or views things as happening in terms of Seth's teachings. As I already said, I can imagine that her parents may have been devastated by this news, and that is very sad.


The issue here for me, is this. When a person talks about a story like this, its hard for me to determine whether they're coming from a perspective that people are victims of circumstances, which I don't believe, or whether they're coming from a perspective of Seth's teachings, which I do believe.

Now, along with this, I find that its very easy for me to sometimes fall into the trap of believing that people "are" victims of circumstances.  Sometimes I completely forget Seth's teaching when we're discussing some particular subject. This then, is what I was thinking about when I asked you if you really believed this.


-jbseth

[Sena]

I would agree, this does come across as a sad story when I view this story from a certain perspective.  But when I view this story from this perspective, it's often because I'm not really thinking about what Seth has to say about these types of things.

jbseth, thanks for your interesting observation. I wonder whether you have read the thread I started today, "Elias on death"? Both Seth and Elias teach us that death is a choice. Therefore, when I wrote that Bethany's death was "sad", I was revealing my belief that death is not a choice. I need to look harder at my beliefs.

[jbseth]

Hi Sena,

Thanks for your response today. When I wrote this message today, I hadn't seen your post about Elias.

I just read it and it seems to me what he says here is pretty good.

I don't know anything about him. It would be interesting, if there was some person channeling today, who's channeled messages were "Seth like" in nature. Maybe we could get some ideas from them about issues going on today that Seth never addressed. Do you know, if anyone is channeling his messages in our times today?   


Even though I know that Seth says that there are no victims and there are no accidents and even though in my deepest soul, I truly believe this to be true, I sometimes forget about this and personally fall victim to the idea that someone, in some situation, appears to be the victim of some circumstance. I find that I'm always continually reminding myself of Seth's various teachings, and there certainly is a lot of them to remember.   

-jbseth