I would say it is a matter of interpretation and ultimately it remains unfounded how people influence their reality.

The assumption that one has to deal with hostile, parasitic, deadly influences on the biological level often coincides with the assumption that one also has to deal with or gets such influences on the social level among humans. The age-old dispute between materialism and spirituality.

In the meantime, I am not surprised that the events of the last two years have revealed two opposing camps that have been pitted against each other time and again in human history. It is also called materialism and determinism versus spirit (a non-materially tangible intelligence) and fuzziness. I assume you know about this.

Now, in turn, we see that the opposing camps are splitting within themselves again, but not really, I think. One who accepts the virus theory as infallible and set must at the same time accept that there is or can be such a thing as biological warfare.

But then how does one even come to terms with the contradiction according to which, for example, on the one hand one considers the "protective measures" taken to be suitable (distance, masks, lockdowns) and on the other rejects them? One possible answer would be that one only wants to do such things voluntarily, but does not want to see them as a national exertion.

The question arises for me that if someone who follows the virus theory and the resulting consequences believes in the superiority of what is technologically feasible and would have to assume that there can and should be effective vaccinations and treatments against viruses and is not in favour of the measures because one believes that the means and vaccinations have another purpose, such as deliberate killing.

Now, such a thing cannot be proven and certainly not when it is said so directly. You would have to accuse the person who gives you the treatment of being a killer, and how can you accuse someone who is convinced that he acted in good faith and with his best conscience? One does not argue with the government directly, one has to argue with colleagues, friends, family etc.

That is precisely the infamous argument that ordinary people on both sides oppose, that one would be a murderer without even one of these camps ever having harboured an intention to murder. That is perfidious, I think.