Coming to Terms With The Reality of Trump. 40.5.6 - 6

[Liselle]

Harmen's 'new' site uses Wilhem's translation, not Harmen's own words

Oh, right, we'd all talked about that not long ago.

But the main point is, I'm right and everyone else has it wrong!

Lah-di-dah.

Or more correctly, I think that 40.6 is says that it's in the doing that we find benefit, and if that means we only try to hunt the raptor, or we actually hit it, both are 'the doing' and hence 'nothing cannot be turned to advantage.'

Or, do you see another meaning here?

Staring at Brad's translation ever harder and longer, I think he says success is necessary.

'The duke takes aim at the raptor atop the
high battlement’s peak
Success at this means nothing cannot be turned to advantage'

'Advantage' seems to depend on 'success', the way he's worded that. Shortening it a bit for clarity: 'Success...means...advantage.' Implication seems to be there's no advantage without success.

I think the biggest difference between his and everyone else's is everyone else seems to say if you aim, you're guaranteed to hit/kill/catch. Brad leaves more wiggle room.

Actually, look at the fan yao 64.6, for context (literally - it's the relating hexagram line; relating hexagram = context).

Brad:
'Being confident on top of drinking wine
Not wrong
But to soak one’s own head,
Even with truth, is truly to lose it'

Hilary:
'Being true and confident in drinking wine.
Not a mistake.
Soaking your head,
Being true and confident, losing your grip on that.'

I think it's saying you have good reason to be confident. 'Truth' is on your side. You can even start toasting yourself. But there's still some danger of becoming over-confident and failing in the end.

Brad seems to have incorporated that more explicitly into 40.6. Actually it might still be there in everyone else's, just because of the order of the phrases - first is the hitting/killing/catching, then the harvest/advantage/furtherance - Brad just makes it more obvious. Or something.

 

[Freedda]

Re; the fan yao, 64.6:

'Being confident on top of drinking wine / Not wrong / But to soak one’s own head, / Even with truth, is truly to lose it'

So, reconsidering my understanding here -

.... in the context of the original question, I wonder, what is the prey, the raptor Rosada is shooting at in a place far above her? Could it be - as the fan yao suggests - that she needs to shoot down her own intoxicated over-confidence, in order to come to terms with those whom she is politically opposed to? And it's only through this that she can be successful?

And, in terms of 40, Release, could it be about Rosada and others (since I feel the same way she does about Trump) releasing our grip on our own way of seeing things? And in terms of the original question, in a practical way, it might mean to be open to seeing other's perspectives, to understand their motiviations and fears which are driving them to take the postions they do.

But as to ....

I think it's saying you have good reason to be confident. 'Truth' is on your side. You can even start toasting yourself.

Perhaps so, but I don't see how this attitude is helpful in this situation, especially since that in asking the question in the first place, Rosada seems to be seeking to challenge her current attitude - which might not be serving her?

D

 

[Liselle]

I'm not sure how to apply it. I don't think over-confidence is the bird - I'd more guess it's what could get in the way of hitting the bird - but I'm not sure.

(What you said about intoxicated - good point. Wouldn't help your aim.)

I have no idea - is there much feeling amongst non-Trumpians that we'd obviously never elect such a person twice, especially now that we've had four years of experience, and his defeat is certain?

 

[Freedda]

Or rethinking my reconsideration again ....

Maybe a part of 40's Release - what the Wing's commentaries refer to as ''Forgiving Excesses' and Nigel Richmond calls 'Release from Indecision - is the idea, the encouragement from 40.6 that 'nothing cannot be turned to advantage', and that this is a 'prey' - or an attitude - we should seek to have (to capture, to take), even if it seems way beyond us to do so!

It suggests to me - as one who is playing the dual role here of questioner and interpreter - that success is possible in coming to terms with people of opposing views, and it's not suggesting that, 'what you are seeking to do is hopeless, so give up before you expend too much more enery and waste everyone's time!

But of course this is only one part, one line, of the response.

Best, D

 

[Freedda]

is there much feeling amongst non-Trumpians that we'd obviously never elect such a person twice, especially now that we've had four years of experience, and his defeat is certain?

Maybe only as wishful thinking, but I dont know if that's what the reading is speaking to.

When I was a kid my parents - who were died-in-the-wool lefties - went out of their way to help me understand that our neighbors were neighbors first, and that their political views and ours shouldn't serve as a point of divisiveness.

I remember my dad would have heated discussions with one of our neighbors about the Vietnam War - and I think our neighbor took some pleasure in getting under my dad's skin with comments like, 'maybe we need to kill all those Viet-Cong babies (or gooks, something like that) so there are not so many of them for us to fight!'

But they walked away from those disucssions as neighbors, not as enemies. And after a few years, I remember our neighbor coming and saying to my dad, 'I'm just sick of this disgusting war.'

However I see our country as deeply divide in a much less tolerant and more dangerous way now. It's not just that people have opposing views, but I get the sense that many on the right, consider those of us on the other side to be morally, politically and even spiritually flawed! (e.g. we are dangerous, greedy, immoral socialist and god is not on our side, but HE is on theirs'.) And I'm sure some of them think we feel the same way - which is sometimes true (e.g. that they are a bunch of dangerous, greedy, racist immoral money-grubbers, and god is not on their side, but SHE is on ours).

So, for me Rosada's question is getting to this very toxic division; and it makes me want to look at - and question - my own attitude towards those on 'the other side'.

Best, D

 

[moss elk]

Freedda,

were you to live nextdoor to a nazi,
would you also self examine and believe the fault was that you were too judgemental?
I ask because you keep falling back to that.

Here is a thought provoking song,
with many swear words.
It has two acts, so you'll have to make it past the first act to understand it.

 

[Liselle]

It's not just that people have opposing views, but I get the sense that many on the right, consider those of us on the other side to be morally, politically and even spiritually flawed!

Exactly, and I agree this pertains to both sides. The more I think about it (thanks for nothing, thread ), I wonder if this is a flip side of widespread engagement? It's very tempting to think more involvement is always better in a democracy, and maybe it is, but living through it is another matter.


Hilary's 40.5 commentary might help:
'A noble one, bound, is released.
Good fortune.
There is truth towards small people.'

The noble one is not truly trapped: she can find a way to express herself even within constraints, because they never touch her essential self. [...]

("Trapped" and "constraints" are from zhi gua 47.)

So as an answer to Rosada's question, come to terms by not letting it get to you too much, while also doing what you can to defeat it (line 6)? There's a line, surely: being spurred to action (line 6) without letting it ruin your life (40.5). Disagree (hexagram 6) without letting disagreement become, or define, or subsume your whole identity. "Liberation in the context of conflict, advice about that... [lines 5 and 6]."


Am having trouble with the last phrase, "There is truth towards small people."

WikiWing commentary explains it like this:

Freedom from bonds, or maybe despite bonds, maybe the freedom of knowing yourself
regardless of how others see you, of not being touched by other’s limiting visions. This
creates the aura of absolute presence that attracts those who can’t manage the same
clear and independent selfhood.

LiSe's translation is similar:

6 at 5: The net-guiding rope of a noble one still leaves freedom. Auspicious. Inspire confidence in small men.

...which in turn resonates well with Brad's commentary:

Deliverance is a triumph, and this part is easy to bear. But whether it unchains the people, liberates the mind, opens the heart, saves the soul or frees the spirit, it will leave you facing enormous unknowns, not the thing for faint-hearted people. Others don’t want the unknowns. If one would be free of the others, simply tell them that deliverance is self-devised, that salvation is a question of diligence. The others will flee in great haste to the safety of their entanglements.

Am still having trouble putting it in my own words or applying it to the question, but there's a bunch there to think about.

 

[Freedda]

were you to live nextdoor to a nazi, .... would you also self examine and believe the fault was that you were too judgemental?

Richard was not a nazi. I think he just wanted to get a rise out of my dad. His son was my best friend for a long time and I had many meals and spent a lot of time at their home. He also worked for Standard Oil (he was one of their first Chinese-American executives), and every summer he'd take all the kids and families on the block across the bay to the oil refineries in Richmond, Calif, where the company had a recreation facility (swimming, picnicing) for company employees, but which Richard shared with us as his guests.

The point I am making however, is that there was a sense of a less combative attitude, which I think allowed Richard to change his mind about the war, where perhaps if my dad had thought of him and called him a 'nazi' or 'a hateful war monger' he might have been less inclined to do. So ergo, is this reading suggesting a similar change in attitude?​

About your second question: I do Buddhst meditation, and a few years ago, I remember coming face-to-face with my sense of being right - which included not only being politically correct, but also morally, intellectually, and spiritually correct as well! It's like Little Richard once said, 'you know you want it all.'

This feeling of 'correctness' extended to my work place where I was having a conflict with someone there: she was wrong, I was right; she didn't listen to others, but I was open to what others said; she didn't know how to do her job, but I did .... and so forth.

When I was able to question that attitude in myself - and explore how it felt and how I carried it in my body - it completely changed my attitude and our working relationship: I became less combative and adversarial, and we were able to work much more affectively together; and interesting to me - it did not require that she change in any way.

And so, it makes me wonder, could I try ('try' being the operative word here) being open to questioning my own understanding of the Yi, or to changing my attitude towards those who support 'he who shall not be named' (as one of my friends calls Trump)?

So self examination? Yes. But that I 'believe the fault (is that I am am) too judgemental?' I dont know if that's the lens I'm viewing it through.

Regards, D

 

[Freedda]

would you also self examine and believe the fault was that you were too judgemental?
I ask because you keep falling back to that.

Please see my response above. Yes, self-examination. No not my fault or being too judegmental.

 

[Qiaozhi Yeats]

This 'new' site uses Wilhem's translation, not Harmen's own words - he is still working on his 'translation' (and now actively working on 10.1). But the main point is, I am right and everyone else has it wrong!

Or, I think that 40.6 is saying that it is in the doing that we find benefit, and if that means we only try to hunt the raptor or we actually hit it, both are 'the doing' and hence 'nothing cannot be turned to advantage.'

E.g. people around here say they are going 'fishing', they don't say they are going 'catching' - though that is the preferred outcome. So, I think 40.6 is more about 'fishing' - but it's only by fishing, that we might actually catch sonething.

Or, do you see another meaning here? And why did you feel you needed to quote 8 different translations? - to show that I am wrong?

D

The text is about a prince and so naturally is concerned with growth. How do you write about growth and decline in English;?; And how do you right about radiating and absorption in that context;?; There is a division of labour, the images are two dimensional, fine I'm right, but let us return to your question, the number 8, this is for solids, without time. 16 is for time and space. Thank you.

 

[Qiaozhi Yeats]

Richard was not a nazi. I think he just wanted to get a rise out of my dad. His son was my best friend for a long time and I had many meals and spent a lot of time at their home. He also worked for Standard Oil (he was one of their first Chinese-American executives), and every summer he'd take all the kids and families on the block across the bay to the oil refineries in Richmond, Calif, where the company had a recreation facility (swimming, picnicing) for company employees, but which Richard shared with us as his guests.

The point I am making however, is that there was a sense of a less combative attitude, which I think allowed Richard to change his mind about the war, where perhaps if my dad had thought of him and called him a 'nazi' or 'a hateful war monger' he might have been less inclined to do. So ergo, is this reading suggesting a similar change in attitude?​

About your second question: I do Buddhst meditation, and a few years ago, I remember coming face-to-face with my sense of being right - which included not only being politically correct, but also morally, intellectually, and spiritually correct as well! It's like Little Richard once said, 'you know you want it all.'

This feeling of 'correctness' extended to my work place where I was having a conflict with someone there: she was wrong, I was right; she didn't listen to others, but I was open to what others said; she didn't know how to do her job, but I did .... and so forth.

When I was able to question that attitude in myself - and explore how it felt and how I carried it in my body - it completely changed my attitude and our working relationship: I became less combative and adversarial, and we were able to work much more affectively together; and interesting to me - it did not require that she change in any way.

And so, it makes me wonder, could I try ('try' being the operative word here) being open to questioning my own understanding of the Yi, or to changing my attitude towards those who support 'he who shall not be named' (as one of my friends calls Trump)?

So self examination? Yes. But that I 'believe the fault (is that I am am) too judgemental?' I dont know if that's the lens I'm viewing it through.

Regards, D

21 biting through, sounds like a fault to me!

 

[Qiaozhi Yeats]

The text is about a prince and so naturally is concerned with growth. How do you write about growth and decline in English;?; And how do you right about radiating and absorption in that context;?; There is a division of labour, the images are two dimensional, fine I'm right, but let us return to your question, the number 8, this is for solids, without time. 16 is for time and space. Thank you.

For the record, 2 dimensions really means 4 motions as di comes from the word dio meaning "two" so we have two X two, similarly 4 dimensions means 8 motions and 16 dimensions means 32 motions. We are dealing with images here so 4 is unlucky.

 

[Freedda]

21 biting through, sounds like a fault to me

Qiaozhi, hexagrams 16 and 21 is not parts of this person's reading, which makes me confused by what you are saying. Maybe a bit more self-care and medication management is needed on your part? Kindly, D.

 

[Freedda]

So as an answer to Rosada's question, come to terms by not letting it get to you too much, while also doing what you can to defeat it (line 6)? There's a line, surely: being spurred to action (line 6) without letting it ruin your life (40.5). Disagree (hexagram 6) without letting disagreement become, or define, or subsume your whole identity. "Liberation in the context of conflict, ...."

Yes, that sound reasonable to me, and perhaps the emperor will spare both our heads today!

Am having trouble with the last phrase, "There is truth towards small people."

That one was a puzzler for me too (and The Wizard of Oz comes to mind, I just can't help it).

I am reminded of something I heard or read a while ago on public broadcasting (here in the US, that's PBS or NPR): it was about a relationship that developed between a rabbi and a white racist anti-semite. The racist would call up the rabbbi and hurl insults at him, and the rabbi would reply something like, 'oh Bob, I heard your wife is not doing well. How's she feeling?' And the racist would call again and go into another hateful rant, and the rabbi would reply something like, 'Bob, you sound tired, are you taking care of yourself, and getting enough rest?'

And so it went for quite some time, until at a certain point Bob started to converse in a more humane way, which lead to them having more meaningful conversations, and eventually before he died, Bob renounced his former racist attitudes. I know it sounds like a made-up Sufi or Grimm's tale, except that it did happen - and in my lifetime!

The point for me, is that in this situation there was cleary someone who was being very small-minded (a.ka. Bob) and someone who was coming from a clearer, more moral and spiritual place, but that didn't stop the rabbi from finding an effective way to reach out and change this person's heart, a.ka. to have 'truth towards small people'.

But then again maybe this is closer to what the Yi is saying here: 'Short people are just the same
As you and I (A fool such as I) / All men are brothers / Until the day they die ....

Regards, D

 

[Liselle]

Yes, exactly. When you get to know someone, your opinion stands a good chance of changing. (For better or worse.)

It's an interesting question, what would happen if you got to know someone quite well who'd done horrible things, but somehow magically you had no knowledge of that side. What if you liked them?

 

[rosada]

Further thoughts-

40.5
If only the superior man can deliver himself, it brings good fortune.
Thus he proves to the inferior man that he is in earnest.

I think this is saying that those of us who don't approve of Trump's policies must beware of where they might be benefitting from them. Like, you may not approve of his practices yet you still tolerate him cause the economy is booming. 40.5 would say you must deliver yourself from these hypocritical actions and boycott (don't vote for) him and those who support him entirely. Living more closely to your values will not only bring you good fortune but it might even get Trump or the other politicians to change their ways.

Interesting that the Image for 40. is about forgiveness. "The superior man pardons mistakes and forgives misdeeds."

 

[Liselle]

Further thoughts-

40.5
If only the superior man can deliver himself, it brings good fortune.
Thus he proves to the inferior man that he is in earnest.

I think this is saying that those of us who don't approve of Trump's policies must beware of where they might be benefitting from them. Like, you may not approve of his practices yet you still tolerate him cause the economy is booming. 40.5 would say you must deliver yourself from these hypocritical actions and boycott (don't vote for) him and those who support him entirely. Living more closely to your values will not only bring you good fortune but it might even get Trump or the other politicians to change their ways.

Interesting that the Image for 40. is about forgiveness. "The superior man pardons mistakes and forgives misdeeds."

That would likely get very spaghetti-ized and require a lot of prioritization and nuanced decision-making (about anyone, not just Trump).

I wonder in a large population if it would cancel itself out?
"I don't like Trump, but I think one or two things he did are so important, I'll forgive the rest."
"I agree with 80% of what Trump does, but I can't stomach the other 20% at all, so I won't vote for him."
Etc.

And then what does decide things? (Actually, "decide things" might be the wrong word, in close elections. One person's president and the other isn't, but there's no consensus.)

 

[my_key]

E.g. people around here say they are going 'fishing', they don't say they are going 'catching' - though that is the preferred outcome. So, I think 40.6 is more about 'fishing' - but it's only by fishing, that we might actually catch sonething.

I can see 'fishing' in relation to this line as casting about and bringing something towards the surface.

40.6 comes at the end of the loosening process we are 'relaxing' into a hot bath which is still a tad on the warm side. This follows on from 40.5 where there has been a realignment in the outer world that needs some inner adjustment ( that noble chap or chappess has slackened off on the reins). And we haven't quite stepped into the realm of 41.1 where we are advised to diminish this thing. Perhaps, the thing we need to diminish is that which is represented by our good old friend Mr Hawk, who has been lording it on high, atop his fortified wall and we have now begun to see him and can take aim at him with an arrow and even reel him in if we are experts with our fishing rod. Seeing him, shooting at hit, hitting him, capturing or killing him matter not as all actions and outcomes are advantageous in this situation. We can see things more for what they are and more for how we are.

At the core of this process is the confirmation that something is already cooking (63 Already Crossing - nuclear), it's been bubbling away for a while as we have had a period of limping along with the struggle (39 Difficulties- pair) and it is not a meal that we are necessarily going to like the taste of - it'll take us to the edges and beyond of our comfort zone ( 37 Dwelling People - opposite),

....or maybe it is nothing like this at all.

 

[hilary]

Harking back umpteen posts to translating 40.6:

公(duke) 用 ('uses') 射 (shooting) 隼 (falcon) 於 (at) 高 (high) 墉 (city wall) 之 ('s) 上 (top)。獲 (gets) 之 (it) 无不利 (nothing not fruitful).

What Bradford does differently: he imagines the possibility of an 'if' before the last part. The duke's shooting the falcon, or shooting at the falcon; [if] he gets it, nothing fails to bear fruit.

That's not an unreasonable thing to do, as we quite often do imagine an added 'if'. Think of the Oracle of 48:
'The Well. Moving the city, not moving the well.
Without loss, without gain,
They come and go, the well wells.
Almost drawn the water, but the rope does not quite reach the water,
Or breaking one's clay jug,
Pitfall.'
We normally read that as 'if you've almost drawn the water... if you break your jug,' etc, but the 'if' is all in our heads.[/if]

 

[Liselle]

@hilary I get what you're saying about the imagined "if," but (since we're harking back posts), are you stating by omission that it's not the other two things I wondered if it might be? If not, I should exorcise them from my head.

• that Bradford incorporated the fan yao more explicitly than the rest of you
• that the order of the phrases determines it

(I suppose the order of the phrases probably has to matter some, just because it's how language usually works. Is it what causes the imagined "if"?)

 

[hilary]

are you stating by omission that it's not the other two things I wondered if it might be?

No, not at all!

• that Bradford incorporated the fan yao more explicitly than the rest of you

Well, we know who invented the expression 'fan yao' in the first place, so I wouldn't put it past him...

• that the order of the phrases determines it

You mean 'he gets it' (aka 'success at this') before 'nothing that does not bring harvest' meaning he has to get it in order for there to be harvest? Well, yes, I suppose. (Though actually having opened my copy of Yijing Word by Word, Vol I, the commentary sounds as though the raptor is toast anyway.)

 

[Liselle]

Bradford also describes the raptor as arrogant, which doesn't pertain to this topic at all

 

[rosada]

How about once you have decided to..
40.5 renounce all association with unhealthy practices ..
40.6 one must continue to be on guard so they don’t slip in again?

The price of liberty is continued vigilance!

 

[Lavalamp]

How about once you have decided to..
40.5 renounce all association with unhealthy practices ..
40.6 one must continue to be on guard so they don’t slip in again?

The price of liberty is continued vigilance!

Consistently the commentaries on 40.5 recommend you to examine your sense of superiority.
That so many have difficulty with this, seems to correlate with political contempt.
In that 40.5 context, 40.6 could indicate successfully dealing with the elements within oneself that are preventing finding that reconciliation. The hawk is an inferior element, insurrection, resistance the commentary says. Is this an internal quality or something you blame on someone else?
The question here was reconciling with people you don't agree with politically. How do you do that? Well maybe pointing the finger at other people isn't the way you do that.
- LL

 

[moss elk]

Since you believe that 40.6 is about rebellion and insurrection, you may want to consider that the gop leadership (congressmen) have been talking about civil war. (and the russians are laughing their butts off saying the same thing to reporters) Heck, a west coast g.o.p. congressman was recently accused of domestic terrorism.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/12/20/gop-legislator-matt-shea-coordinated-anti-government-land-occupation-oregon/%3foutputType=amp

Now, knowing this,
please say who is trying to start a rebellion?
(hint: it's the same wealthy racists who started the real civil war in order to preserve slavery)

Here is some good news though,
in 2019 texas schools decided to start teaching children the primary cause of the civil war (slavery) ending 160 years of denial and claiming it was about "states rights".

 

[Lavalamp]

Since you believe that 40.6 is about rebellion and insurrection, you may want to consider that the gop leadership (congressmen) have been talking about civil war. (and the russians are laughing their butts off saying the same thing to reporters) Heck, a west coast g.o.p. congressman was recently accused of domestic terrorism.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/12/20/gop-legislator-matt-shea-coordinated-anti-government-land-occupation-oregon/%3foutputType=amp

Now, knowing this,
please say who is trying to start a rebellion?
(hint: it's the same wealthy racists who started the real civil war in order to preserve slavery)

Here is some good news though,
in 2019 texas schools decided to start teaching children the primary cause of the civil war (slavery) ending 160 years of denial and claiming it was about "states rights".

You are mired in your political passions. You are not even close to suspending judgement and considering the actual question that was asked, which was about reconciliation or coming to terms, or an understanding with people you really disagree with politically. Rosada asked the Yi "how do you do that?"

In my view the advice of the Yi would be you reconcile with other people by looking at yourself, and dealing with your own shortcomings and barriers to union first. Not by pointing the finger at others in accusation or going to war with them. Meeting them halfway is the context, it describes reconciliation or "coming to terms" which was Rosada's subject, her question.
After all - the only person you can really change is yourself. And it isn't like accusing others of being your moral and/or intellectual inferior isn't what one has already been doing, resulting only in impasse.

- LL

 

[moss elk]

Since the facts and history are a mire,
you may correctly say I am mired in fact.

Since you refute nothing I've said,
you are correct to say there is no reason for us to continue.

 

[Lavalamp]

Since the facts and history are a mire,
you may correctly say I am mired in fact.

Since you refute nothing I've said,
you are correct to say there is no reason for us to continue.

Forgive me for staying on topic, but the question was about reconciliation. Not about who is right or wrong, or how to best lord your opinions over others, or dominate them with your point of view.
But you can always ask again, and ask the Yi how you can best crush under your heel people that disagree with you politically.
- LL

 

[Freedda]

... you may correctly say I am mired in fact.

ME, I have said this before, and I'll say it again .... even though I may agree with your political passions, I feel that your responses here often have nothing to do with what the Yi is saying and everything to do with your disdain for Trump.

I mentioned this to you once before (maybe earlier in this thread?), and you responded that in fact your comments were based on the Yi's response. But another time - before this - you also said that you felt it was your duty to bash Trump every chance you got, which seems to be more to the point of many of your comments.

It also seems you have a hair-trigger as far as anyone whom you think might support Trump (or at least not put him down ruthlessly): that they are uncaring, unthinking (perhaps dishonest) racists - or something close to that!

So, while I may often agree with your assessment of Trump, that's a far cry from thinking you're making any attempt to reply with any accuracy to these readings.

Having said all that, I'm still curious if I'm close to the truth here, or if perhaps I'm the one who is not paying attention? So I'll ask - if you feel like it - would you share what you think this reading is saying, and specifically:

What advice do you think the Yi is offering Rosada (and others) on how 'a person like myself who feels Trump is destroying the country can come to terms with those who feel he is doing a great job as president?' (That part of what you said I think has gotten lost, or at least misplaced by me.)

D

 

[rosada]

Interesting we now have the coronavirus epidemic to deal with and perhaps it gives us a real example of the problem of coming to terms with Trump's reality. In Trump's reality the virus is a "hoax" created by the Democrats to discredit him, he's announced it's going away already and said that even so a vaccine will be available "very soon". In the World Health official's reality however the virus is could become pandemic and furthermore said a vaccine will not be ready for at least a year or year and a half.
So this is a situation that cannot be maneuvered by simply overcoming one's own inner antipathy towards Trump.
I notice that since starting to write this post this morning Trump has now announced he's doing somethings in response to the threat so this may be an example of 40.5, that is when people who believe the virus is a threat completely ignore his attempts to reassure his base with his promises that he "knows more about this virus than anybody", then he recognizes people aren't going for it and starts taking it seriously. More thoughts but gotta go feed the family..