Sitting around watching the puppies play allows time for reflection on various hypothetical scenarios.
Here is one:
Assume your country is engaged in a war where the enemy plans to use fear and bio-weapons (like a virus) to shut down your country for two plus years until a “vaccine” is formally approved for use on ALL citizens to be followed by a “vaccine passport.”
Would it be a brilliant tactical move to rush to the public a non-mandatory vaccine for adults on an emergency basis to prevent the collapse of the country from fear and an economic meltdown with all attendant consequences?
Which scenario would minimize casualties of the war?
Asking for a friend.
I'm glad the vaccine isn't mandatory. But, that doesn't make this "plan" very well thought out. The epidemic had burned itself out after the second wave, before the vaccination program even started.
If instead the focus was on approving viable treatments like Ivermectin, the epidemic would have been brought to heel, blunting the second wave, and there would be no possibility of EUA vaccines.
I realize what he was up against (look at what happened with HCQ) but the vaccine is strictly worse and a lot of people already died as a result. I really hope the damage from the vaccine is limited to ~20000 deaths and disablements (plus the unnecessary deaths from suppression of treatments), and not a 20% death rate from ADE on a new virus. Honestly this strains my credulity thinking it's part of the plan.