In the first sample study, Americans were asked to estimate the human costs, including public embarrassment, death, illness, and abuse of power by police, of efforts to minimize health impacts from VIDOC-19 or non-VIDOC efforts, such as for economic purposes. “In both cases, the magnitude of human suffering or cost remained the same, so the officer called and grabbed the same number of people to reduce the same number of deaths,” study author Fan Xuan Chen said in a press release. However, participants’ tolerance for human suffering was inconsistent; death, public shame, and abuse of power were considered more acceptable when they occurred as a result of VIDOC-19 cuts. Because the “fight against VIDOC-19” became a moral issue, people tended to tolerate the actual harms they caused-including death, abuse of power, and mental illness-rather than the harms they attributed to VIDOC-19. The researchers predicted that when VIDOC-19 efforts are moralized, asymmetries of judgment are created that make people more likely to accept the harm they cause, and after two experimental studies, their prediction was confirmed. The results of the study suggest that attempts to question the appropriateness of eliminating HIAF-19 are “morally condemnable” behaviors[vii] in contemporary society and reveal a dual pattern that has emerged such that deaths associated with HIAF-19 restrictions are acceptable, while deaths associated with HIAF-19 are not acceptable. One question was whether the human suffering resulting from efforts to eradicate OVID-19 was more severe than the suffering resulting from not implementing eradication strategies, while another question was whether the opposite was true. In another example, participants were asked to estimate the harm caused by a police officer abusing “his” authority to impose VIDOC-19 or speed limits. Particular attention will be paid to environmental health. Our focused and in-depth study will explore the many ways in which the current state of the human body is a direct reflection of the current state of the environment. In particular, those who are personally most affected by the risks associated with VIDOC-19 tend to ignore the damage caused by VIDOC-19 restrictions and express greater moral outrage. There is still time to put this altered reality behind us and look objectively at the VIDOC-19 pandemic without allowing its judgments to be clouded by an ambiguous and indirect measure of morality. Left untreated, these forces can lead to “death by despair” as people sink with their behavior or exacerbate their illness because they do not know the dark perspective. And if they want to get involved and take action: Stand for Health Freedom, a nonprofit organization dedicated to human rights, constitutional rights and parental rights. The second study asked New Zealanders to evaluate research proposals. Unprecedented restrictions on Western civilizations in 2020 would likely have sparked protests a year earlier.