What is the very difference between trust for a person, who might have a disease, or to simply trust another person? Is there any difference within the word “trust” by these two scenarios?
To love another, to trust another, and when blending both “love” and “trust” together, the only thing that may divide a relationship is betrayal. Such betrayal, stemming from dissatisfaction, stemming from boredom, stemming from tedium, makes a person want more. Such relationship betrayal, even if the reason is different from a disease, still causes hurt. On the psychological level, trust has little to do with the question of whether a person has a disease, or not. It has to do with taking a risk.
One takes a risk, when they trust. One does not trust, out of fear of being hurt. Were one to have a disease, they’d be hurt. Were one to have their trust betrayed, they’d be hurt. What is the difference between being hurt from the disease, or being hurt because your offered trust was used for manipulation?
To build a society around a lack of trust for individuals, and more of a trust for institutions, will make this ongoing virus the saving grace for such powerhouses. For trust is the essence of taking a risk. If a world does not comprehend how to do that, then it will breathe fear as easily as it breathes air. Trust involves risk. Trust involves love, not fear. Therefore, through that love and trust, a person is not ever betrayed, unless they are met with what they fear. A person inevitably keeps that trust, through love.
Therefore, the connection between a one who trusts another who may have a disease, or trusting another for simple trust, is based on risk. Nothing more is present, to describe how a person may become hurt.
Modern Romanticism 
I think the protests around the world show a lack of trust in governments and more trust in people
LikeLiked by 1 person