I have to say I don't know enough about the 'gain of function' research to have an informed opinion. I certainly don't doubt that such research took place; the 'motivation' for such research is where the question lies (in my opinion). As for the virus 'coming from a lab' vs 'natural origin'. Again, I don't have an informed opinion but I don't doubt that it 'could' have come from a lab. And again, it's not whether it came from a lab or not, but rather, was it intentionally released.
I think it is fairly likely that labs do such research, and it's certainly possible that accidents happen. The real question is, was it released on purpose, and if so, why. I personally find it hard to accept that it was released intentionally but I remain open to suggestion.
When talking about grand conspiracies, I remain skeptical that there is a coordinated world-wide attempt to implement a global agenda of the nature proposed in this forum (population reduction, etc). I accept that in our capitalist society, 'big business' is in general driven by profit over and above concern for human welfare, and with global corporations, the 'scope' of this 'drive' will transcend conventional borders. But I don't believe there is a coordinated effort by 'the elite' to kill people off.
Regarding:
There should be no vaccine mandates. There should be no coercions
I understand and agree with the sentiment overall. But I do also see the 'why'. In the mainstream view, the vaccine is like the speed limit or the 'drunk driving' restrictions. You are required to limit your alcohol intake while driving, and also limit your speed, not for your OWN protection but for the protection of others (primarily). People generally accept these restrictions and understand that it is for the benefit of everyone. In the case of the vaccine, the only way the virus will be stamped out is if more than 'x' percent of the population have immunity - either through vaccine or infection. In order to reach 'x', the majority have to take the vaccine and thus - the mandates/incentives are implemented. I understand this from an epidemiological perspective. I don't personally think mandates are good, but I'm less opposed to 'coercions'/'incetives'. If in fact the virus is 'real', and if in fact the vaccine reduces transmission, then - limiting entrance to public spaces does make some sense. You aren't being forced to take the vaccine, you are allowed to choose. But if you choose not to, you can't enter a public space. I can see the logic of that.
I have to say I don't know enough about the 'gain of function' research to have an informed opinion. I certainly don't doubt that such research took place; the 'motivation' for such research is where the question lies (in my opinion). As for the virus 'coming from a lab' vs 'natural origin'. Again, I don't have an informed opinion but I don't doubt that it 'could' have come from a lab. And again, it's not whether it came from a lab or not, but rather, was it intentionally released.
I think it is fairly likely that labs do such research, and it's certainly possible that accidents happen. The real question is, was it released on purpose, and if so, why. I personally find it hard to accept that it was released intentionally but I remain open to suggestion.
When talking about grand conspiracies, I remain skeptical that there is a coordinated world-wide attempt to implement a global agenda of the nature proposed in this forum (population reduction, etc). I accept that in our capitalist society, 'big business' is in general driven by profit over and above concern for human welfare, and with global corporations, the 'scope' of this 'drive' will transcend conventional borders. But I don't believe there is a coordinated effort by 'the elite' to kill people off.
Regarding:
I understand and agree with the sentiment overall. But I do also see the 'why'. In the mainstream view, the vaccine is like the speed limit or the 'drunk driving' restrictions. You are required to limit your alcohol intake while driving, and also limit your speed, not for your OWN protection but for the protection of others (primarily). People generally accept these restrictions and understand that it is for the benefit of everyone. In the case of the vaccine, the only way the virus will be stamped out is if more than 'x' percent of the population have immunity - either through vaccine or infection. In order to reach 'x', the majority have to take the vaccine and thus - the mandates/incentives are implemented. I understand this from an epidemiological perspective. I don't personally think mandates are good, but I'm less opposed to 'coercions'/'incetives'. If in fact the virus is 'real', and if in fact the vaccine reduces transmission, then - limiting entrance to public spaces does make some sense. You aren't being forced to take the vaccine, you are allowed to choose. But if you choose not to, you can't enter a public space. I can see the logic of that.