The experts can spin the data however they want, depending on what needs to be accomplished. Do they count comorbidities or not? Do they count the 'with' or 'due to'? What does 'fully vaccinated' mean? Because it changes day to day. In fact the rules of the game change so frequently that it's no wonder the public has given up and just 'trusts the experts'. How about 'close contacts'? How long do we quarantine? Or do we? How far is social distancing? Six feet? Ten? Three? Masks? Indoors and out? It's all a farce.

There's a reference in The Refuser .. the line between the two has become very gray: For every Refuser, the Algorithm, for purposes of public health and safety, increased the number of Jab losses and decreased rewards according to the demographics and psychology of the community, resulting in a heightened sense of risk, risk attributed directly to the Refuser.

That's the value of demonization - it works as a dynamic. Tried and true.

The Refuser raises some questions - that we need to think about quickly - what options do we have for fucking with the system? The one you've got going in the book - feeding it fake information - makes sense. It's dependent on that info stream for exerting control - so it's also its weakness.

Ironically it's kinda like the mRNA tech - you intercept/alter the message - may be the only way to do it.