Yeah, I hear you. It's like they picked a very small number of people to be the demonstration. They could have had a much larger group to interview after the fact and months later. This "one person to watch" passes out and it is now forbidden to verify they are alright.
Part of this is because the people in charge of the U.S. are trying to make things more opaque. They want it to be the norm that some authority is the arbiter of truth and people can't verify anything for themselves. That's why nobody was allowed to see physical evidence from the Sandy Hook shooting.
Another (completely different) scenario I came up with is where the people deciding these things (at the top level) had no idea if an unknown biological agent from a Chinese lab was weaponized and came up with a plan where some of the population would get mRNA jabs and some would abstain. The reason being that they legitimately did not know which would be worse, so they had to hedge their bets.
My thinking was inspired by an old question: You have a choice between two missile defence systems. System A will block 80% of the missiles, while the remaining 20% will get through. System B has an 80% chance of blocking all of the missiles and a 20% chance of blocking none of them. Which do you implement?
The issue has since become so politicized and monetized that it is impossible to untangle.
Yeah, I hear you. It's like they picked a very small number of people to be the demonstration. They could have had a much larger group to interview after the fact and months later. This "one person to watch" passes out and it is now forbidden to verify they are alright.
Part of this is because the people in charge of the U.S. are trying to make things more opaque. They want it to be the norm that some authority is the arbiter of truth and people can't verify anything for themselves. That's why nobody was allowed to see physical evidence from the Sandy Hook shooting.
Another (completely different) scenario I came up with is where the people deciding these things (at the top level) had no idea if an unknown biological agent from a Chinese lab was weaponized and came up with a plan where some of the population would get mRNA jabs and some would abstain. The reason being that they legitimately did not know which would be worse, so they had to hedge their bets.
My thinking was inspired by an old question: You have a choice between two missile defence systems. System A will block 80% of the missiles, while the remaining 20% will get through. System B has an 80% chance of blocking all of the missiles and a 20% chance of blocking none of them. Which do you implement?
The issue has since become so politicized and monetized that it is impossible to untangle.