What seems patently obvious to you, is not patently obvious to everybody else. At that point, how much of what you believe to be true is a product of your believe, rather than objective facts?
The more likely scenario, is they got out ahead of their skis, and knew it would be the mandate that would launch a 1,000 lawsuits, and some Trump appointed judge somewhere would say that it was unconstitutional because OSHA laws passed in the 1960s weren't meant by Congress to be used for vax mandates. It's put under an injunction pending dozens of circuit court cases. A quick implementation now takes years (think of Obamacare here). The whole edifice falls apart, or it ends up on the Supreme Court, where even if they rule for it, that's 2-3 years down the road.
What seems patently obvious to you, is not patently obvious to everybody else. At that point, how much of what you believe to be true is a product of your believe, rather than objective facts?
The more likely scenario, is they got out ahead of their skis, and knew it would be the mandate that would launch a 1,000 lawsuits, and some Trump appointed judge somewhere would say that it was unconstitutional because OSHA laws passed in the 1960s weren't meant by Congress to be used for vax mandates. It's put under an injunction pending dozens of circuit court cases. A quick implementation now takes years (think of Obamacare here). The whole edifice falls apart, or it ends up on the Supreme Court, where even if they rule for it, that's 2-3 years down the road.
There is a pattern to it.
A tip however, is: Always remember the division you are ignoring is the main attack.
Liddell Hart's books on strategy can be summed up as, "The indirect approach."