Covid: What would you do as the leader of a country? 

Question: A comment by the masters mentioned that it was considered that we should see the back of it by the beginning of 2021. This has proven more an issue than anticipated. Many nation governments are using various means to entice and intimidate its populace to be vaccinated. Is it still the case that those who die with COVID would have died because they would pass by the end of the year and just died sooner? 

What about people’s free will not to be vaccinated, but are manipulated by government direction and are coerced into being vaccinated and pass from the screen of life on earth? In Australia, many companies are headed towards: “You will get vaccinated, else your employment is terminated”. We have seen in rare cases that being vaccinated is not a guarantee that you cannot get COVID and die. The spin here is that you might get COVID but are unlikely to die. Of course, we do not know yet what long term effects may be, via the various vaccinations. Doctors have been given indemnity. Yet, the government is saying that they are not forcing anyone to be vaccinated. Yet still, it seems to be coercing that their only current recourse is by having everyone vaccinate. We are headed towards the divide of those vaccinated and those unvaccinated, where being unvaccinated you become an outcast. What is the lesson we were and are still to learn from worldwide COVID?


Answer from the Ascended Master Mother Mary through Kim Michaels. This answer was given during the 2021 Webinar – Moving Toward Golden Age Relationships.

I would like you to go through a little thought experiment. Imagine that you are the leader of a country, you start getting reports that there is this new disease that is spreading, people are getting sick. Some people have to be hospitalized, some people have to go to the intensive care unit and receive oxygen and some people die. You realize that it is especially the elderly and those with respiratory problems that are dying from this disease. You are the leader of the country. So, everyone is looking to you to decide what to do. What would you do in that situation? Would you make some rash decision? Or would you seek more information, so you can make a more educated decision?

Now imagine that you decide to seek more information. Where would you get this information? Well, you have two options, two main options. You can get it from the government apparatus in your country, scientists, medical professionals, bureaucrats, people in government, politicians. You can hear what they have to say. You can hear what their recommendations are. The other option is you can take your computer and go out on the internet and see what is available out there. You will find a lot of information that is coming from either a known source or that is coming from people who claim to have some kind of authority, although there is no proof that they have that authority. You will find that for each claim made by the authorities in your government apparatus, there is a claim on the internet that denies that official claim.

What would you do? How would you make your decisions? Would you base it on these allegations that are on the internet? Or would you base it on the government apparatus that at least has some tradition, some scientific investigations, some observations from hospitals and doctors on what to base it on? They have experience with other diseases. They make their recommendation based on those experiences.

What would you choose as the foundation for your decision-making process? Realizing of course, that it is your decision and whatever the outcome is, you will be blamed for it.

Now, you might decide that, we will now imagine that you will put aside the many claims out there on the internet. You will look at what is being said from government sources or at least professional sources. Then, you will find there are two claims being made. One says we should attempt to limit the spread of the disease as much as possible. Another says we should let the disease run its course, so that we can achieve herd immunity as quickly as possible.

You might observe, for example, that the country of Sweden decided in the early stages of the pandemic, to let the country experience the full effects of the disease without going into any kind of restrictions or lockdown in order to achieve herd immunity. You will find that most other countries took the other course of seeking to limit the disease, the spread of the disease, by taking whatever measures were available. What would you decide?

Let us now imagine you decide that you will limit the spread of the disease. You decide to create a lockdown to limit contact between people. A lot of businesses will have to shut down, especially restaurants and the entertainment industry, cultural institutions and so on. Travel will be restricted. Many businesses will shut down or people will work from home, government offices the same thing, in order to prevent that there is a violent and quick spread of the disease, which you know, will lead to your hospitals being overwhelmed by patients and therefore, people dying, that would not have to die if this was more spread out.

Again, you decide to do this and see the effects. Obviously, after some time you realize that this has limited the spread of the disease, your hospital system has not been overwhelmed, even though it has been burdened, but it has not been overwhelmed. And you can even look and see that far fewer people have died in your country than in Sweden, where they did not impose the restrictions.

You can even observe that the Swedish authorities and the Swedish people are beginning to question this approach of achieving herd immunity because the cost is too high. Especially, there are many elderly people in nursing homes that are dying from the disease. You are realizing that it probably was the more pragmatic decision to go for some kind of lockdown. But obviously, you also realize that you cannot be in lockdown forever. The economy simply cannot handle it. What do you do?

Well, suddenly, there is a new development in the situation. Several vaccines are brought to the market. It is now possible to vaccinate people, so they have a much lower possibility of getting the disease. Now what do you do? Again, you can listen to the professionals in the field in your own government, or you can go out on the internet and you can find that there are many people on the internet who are making completely contrary claims to what is being said from official sources. Some claim a vaccine will not work, some claim the disease does not even exist, that it is all made up. Some claim that vaccines will harm people or that it is a violation of their freedoms, their constitutional rights, and so forth. What do you decide?

You know that if you use the vaccine to its maximum capacity, and a certain percentage of people get vaccinated, you can stop the pandemic, you can lift the restrictions and society can at least start moving back to a normal lifestyle, even if COVID will still be with you in the years to come, in a lesser form. What do you do?

Now let’s imagine you decide to use the vaccine. After all they are developed, you have your citizens vaccinated against other diseases and you know it has been proven in the past that vaccinations have helped eradicate certain diseases that are no longer a problem. You decide to use the vaccine. In the beginning, you have a rush of people who voluntarily go to get vaccinated. But then after some time you run into a situation where now there are people who refuse to be vaccinated, even though the vaccines are available for them. Well, what do you then do?

You know that for the vaccines to be effective in eradicating disease, a certain percentage of the people have to be vaccinated. It does not seem that in your country there is enough of a percentage to be vaccinated. What do you do? Do you try to entice them? Or do you come to a point where you realize you have to use force for the greater good? What do you do?

Take note, I am not saying that you should do this or that. I am simply clarifying the options.

Now, you are, of course, not a dictator. There is a limit to what you can tell businesses to do. Here, you have many businesses who have either been locked down, or they have had their workers work from home, both of which are temporary solutions. You cannot really tell these businesses what to do. But you observe that many of these businesses are saying: “We have to get back to a normal way of doing business and the vaccination is the practical way to do this, and we cannot have an office with 100 people, where two people refuse to get vaccinated and they can then still keep the pandemic going, not so much influencing the vaccinated people, but our customers.” The company says: “Our company policy is, if you are not vaccinated, you cannot come to work.” And if you cannot work from home, you have to find another job, where they do not care about you not being vaccinated. What can you do about that when you are not a dictator?

Again, I am not telling you what you should or should not do. I am simply asking you to go through the scenario of, imagine that instead of you looking at the government and evaluating their decisions, you are now the one who has to make the decision. What would you then do in that situation, knowing that it is all going to come back to you?

Now, I am asking you to do something else, you step back from your own personal view of the situation and you observe what has been happening, what is happening in the world. I will use two countries as examples, because this messenger has lived in both of them and is fairly familiar with them and many of you will also be familiar with them. You have the country of Denmark. In the beginning of 2021, Denmark was behind the United States in terms of vaccinations. This was mainly because there were more vaccinations available in the United States because they were produced there. Denmark was behind, they started vaccinating the most vulnerable groups in the population but sometime in the early summer, Denmark actually got ahead of the United States in terms of the percentage of people vaccinated—certainly not the number because there are 5 million people in Denmark versus over 300 million in the United States, but in terms of the percentage.

This means that in Denmark today, the Danish government has lifted most of the restrictions. There are still some travel restrictions about other countries, but inside the country, most restrictions have been lifted. Why has this been possible? Why has the government decided to do this? Because, as of right now, more than two thirds of the adult population are fully vaccinated. The reason that it is not higher is that the vaccine is not approved for children. But of all of the people who have been offered the vaccine, more than 95% of them have chosen to get the vaccine.

Now, you look at the United States. As I said, first the United States was ahead of any other country in terms of the percentage of people vaccinated because many Americans rushed to voluntarily get vaccinated. Then this started to slow down, even though the current administration had set up a very efficient process for producing, distributing the vaccines and getting people vaccinated. The number of people vaccinated started going down. Why was this? Because there was a large percentage of people in the United States, who, for various reasons, would not voluntarily get vaccinated. It does not matter why. I am simply stating what anyone can observe.

You now have a situation in the United States where some states have lifted many restrictions, and you can simply look at the indisputable numbers that the number of cases is going up, the number of deaths is going up, the number of severe hospitalizations are going up, and there are states where the healthcare system is beginning to become overburdened. This is just a matter of observing facts. You can, of course, go into denial and say, “Oh, it is all fake”. But really, can you deny this? It’s just an observation you can make. What you have is a situation now where the disease is still spreading, mainly because of the Delta variant.

The United States is approaching a situation that is similar to what they had last fall, where there was not a vaccine, and the disease is spreading primarily among the unvaccinated. The United States government knows very well the enormous resistance to a government mandate; therefore, they are reluctant to do it. But there are, of course, private companies who are not limited by the government. They are beginning to say, our employees need to be vaccinated, partly because we have an obligation to society, partly because we want to go on to do business as we normally do and partly because, of course, we need to protect our customers. How can you in the American system prevent businesses from doing this? How can you even say it is wrong? There is no basis in the governmental system for restricting businesses from doing this. It is a private business; they can set the terms for employment.

What is the difference now between the country of Denmark and the country of the United States? Well, you can look at the outer situation, you can see that Denmark has a public healthcare system, the United States does not. Many Americans call this socialized medicine, but it is not. If you go back to my dictation about families, you will see that I was saying that there has, in many modern democracies, been an increase in the recognition of basic humanity. There has been an increase in social awareness.

If you look at Denmark, compared to the United States, there is a far higher sense of social awareness in Denmark than in the United States. This is one reason Denmark has a public healthcare system because the Danish people have said: We do not want people to have their lives ruined or go into bankruptcy because of medical bills. This is a burden we all need to share. Therefore, we are willing to pay more in taxes in order to have a public health care system.

The reality is that Denmark, as a country, spends a smaller percentage of the economic resources on health care than the United States does. Because in the United States, you have the middleman or private health care insurance companies who are seeking to make a profit. They have no reason to limit what companies can charge for medical treatment, because there is at least an unwritten agreement between the industry of insurance and the industry of health care providers. They have an unwritten agreement about what they can charge, so they can both make the maximum profit.

In Denmark, the social awareness has said: We cannot really allow people to make a profit off of people’s illness, therefore, we need to limit healthcare costs as much as possible within the restraints of the system. This higher social awareness is why the vast majority of Danes have voluntarily gotten vaccinated. The government has not in any way forced or coerced people to get vaccinated, private companies have not done it either because they did not have to, because of the social awareness.

In the United States, you have this lack of social awareness, which is why you do not have a public health care system, which is why you have people who have taken their issue of freedom, personal freedom, and perverted it so that it can override their social responsibility towards other people. In other words, many Americans are, as the saying goes, looking out for number one. They only care about themselves: What is in it for me? They do not have the social awareness to look at the whole. Whereas, people in Denmark look at society as a whole and say: What do I need to do to help the whole?

In America, there is, among many people, not that social awareness. Of course, some people in America have it, but many obviously, do not. You made the remark in the question, that there is a divide between the unvaccinated and the vaccinated and the unvaccinated become outcasts. Well, in the United States, there is clearly a divide between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated and the unvaccinated become dead. That is the stark reality of what you can observe right now.

Now, my beloved, this messenger has looked at this situation. And he realized, because his mind works that way, that he looks for deeper connections, that the republican party and President Trump, former President Trump, are the ones who are promoting this individual freedom, constitutional freedom among their electors. And therefore, they do not want to force them to get vaccinated. At the same time, these people hope that they can win back a majority in Congress and the Senate in the midterm election. And some, at least, hope that Donald Trump can run for president again in 2024. Do they not see, this messenger realized, that by not encouraging their electors to get vaccinated, there is a real risk that so many of their potential electors will die before the election, that they cannot win a majority? They are literally letting their own supporters die from a preventable disease, because the vaccination is there.

This messenger looks at a situation like this, cannot understand why people cannot see this. Of course, there is another part of his mind where he realizes why. Because we have given teachings on perception filters, cognitive dissonance, the fallen beings, and so on. But I am simply giving you these thoughts so that you can put yourself in a situation where you have to make the decisions: What would you do? You can observe neutrally what anybody can observe, by just looking at statistics, looking at the numbers. Of course, you can deny anything, I realize that. But can you really deny these numbers that are compiled by people from all over the world who really, most of them, just want this pandemic to end?

Again, I am not telling you what to think or not think. But I am asking you to think.

 

Copyright © 2021 Kim Michaels