For the record, i think it's corrupt pharma/science/security culture that has doubled down when the heat came on - still thinks it can get away with it - thinks they're too big to fail. See it as chance to entrench centralized control.

Same here. Good old fashioned greed and power grab at work.

1. Population culling - modeling says the earth needs to lose people weight fast - through a combination of Covid and vaccine adverse effects - fastest way to scythe through the frail - with some vaccine induced sterilization for designated non-breeders.

Hmmm... yet to be release chapter 15 (or so) of The Refuser visits that territory.

I've been thinking about related questions with regards to mandates. One is, at what point would the people supporting mandates stop supporting them? Let's explore some possibilities.

• Frequency. At what frequency would people start to balk? Most people are apparently fine with every six months. How about every three months? Every month? Every week? I mean, there would obviously be a point. Every hour? Implants delivering continual dosage? (Actually, many would probably go for implants.)
  
• Level of intrusion. Implants? How about if 'Science' decides that your fetus would be better protected if it's vaccinated at 8 weeks, and so the govt mandates a prenatal jab. Is that just dandy?
  
• For those shouting 'my body my choice' when it comes to abortion but not vaccination, what if 'Science' finds that abortion, for whatever reason, increases the risk of infection, and so makes abortion illegal? Is that just dandy? Let's look at it another way. What if 'Science' finds that an infected mother is likely to pass it on to her fetus, and so abortion is mandatory? I mean, if we're going to be serious about public health...
  
• DNA. What if 'Science' discovers a DNA characteristic that makes one not only vulnerable to covid and being a superspreader, but who also doesn't benefit from the vaccine... should they then be quarantined for life? Or worse? Again, c'mon folks, we need to tackle this thing.

One could argue that I'm venturing into logical fallacy land of slippery slope, but I'm really just asking questions, not posing arguments, the main question being the first. At what point would the frequency turn people against mandates?