A couple of frantic observations

• China's Corona handling has a twofold purpose: to reassure the Chinese that China can handle biological warfare and to render the idea that China itself is engaged in it taboo, just like making snake like hissing sounds at someone aims to render the idea that one is one oneself taboo, illogical as it may seem.
• Just like the powerful decide over peace and war, they also decide whether the logic of peace or war is applied, and where the logic of peace aims to steer behaviour, the logic of war compares gains and losses, and whatever logic is in effect governs the inference of intent, thus turning idealistic, but impractical acts into hostile ones or practical, but not universally justifiable ones into barbaric acts.
  
• Boasts of having created Corona variants with 80% lethality are military threats, and more generally governments these days project in all kinds of ways that they are presiding over secret dangers.
• In the case of biological warfare it is only natural that the average citizen would want to get vaccinated against the agents being used. However, it would be a major failure not to ask first, whether biological warfare should be conducted, before deciding on how to conduct it. Yet, when there is a suspicion that it has already started, the baser side of human nature will have little patience with the whether and support any cloaking of  that question in order to focus on the how.
• Both Russia and the United States are running mobilisation programs, Russia by way of its difficulties and endangeredness in the Ukraine and the United States by way of the mayhem of Democrat policies. It all appears agreed on, in a concerted effort to drive the logic of peace out, and it fits the narration that the logic of peace has been weaponised by the European Union.
• Fundamental to political correctness, actually basic politeness, is that you're not supposed to publicly expose someone as a simpleton. There may be a good reason for this, namely that simple explanations are preferable to complicated ones (Occam's Razor) and that the somewhat aloof interest in a simpleton's opinion hence serves a decent purpose. However, this natural sympathy can be weaponised as well, when credence is given to simplistic explanations artificially, thus turning interesting hypotheses into serious possibilities.
• In connection with the previous point: The debate about deism versus theism hinges on the complexity of right conduct starting from John's assertion (John 9:31) that God doesn't hear the sinners, the unrepentant ones, of course, as all Christians have sinned (1 John 1:8), since if the question of right conduct was sufficiently simple, as simple as going up (in frequency...) or down, no divine intelligence was needed to establish a sin as such, but it was rather man himself who would have knowingly chosen sin and all that it entails or virtue and the same man would have the knowledge to do good by way of the power of his prayer afforded to him by his elevated state, since it was so easy to see what would be good, like lifting a bunch of people up, again requiring no divine intelligence to make sure that it is good that is actually done. On the other hand, if we can never know, what comes of our deeds, our intelligence is not sufficient to intervene on behalf of the good, to guarantee the harmony of creation. However, simplistic as the idea is that we only need to want to be good and then be good and steer the world towards the good by way of our immanent or transcendent acts, it may garner traction not only amongst simpletons, but also wider circles, when the voluntary aspect is artificially emphasised, like when help is given or denied based on joining a program or not. Of course, just to avoid any misunderstanding, the standard Christian view these days is of course that God steers our course without any input from us. It is obvious that the similarly simplistic antithesis to this view, i.e. self-deification, has so far spread more widely than the somewhat complex synthesis of connected intelligences of different degrees.
• Actually, the child asks God what to do and the adult to help him do it - or so it would be, if the latter wasn't in violation of the generative design of our age, which puts the responsibility for staying on course into the hands of the general supportiveness. And that is why God is believed to care for us as for children and not as for adults, that is without having to consider our input. One may liken the self-deification to adolescence, but that is making it cuter than it is.
• One of the consequences of granting licences and then threatening to withdraw them in case of political dissent is that professional authority is replaced by simplisticism in public discourse, which itself is protected by a layer of aloof sympathy from criticism as mentioned above: Captured authority breeds a simplistic playground for developing concepts leading to emancipation.
• On the one hand this simplification occurs and on the other a positioning for conflict, where the conflict is a hereditary crutch for authority in this incarnation and the next.
  

It isn't beautiful, but things are set to move forward.