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.
Is this the better choice? Allowing early treatments to be suppressed to allow part 1 of a 2 part bioweapon to be deployed on some of the best parts of your domestic population?
Whereas Ivermectin would have just stopped it in its tracks as we now have proof of from India and elsewhere.. but this was known for months.