A pandemic seems like an awfully long and expensive way of doing that, especially considering they already did so before the pandemic through so many means (many of which actually make them money rather than cost them, I assume you pay taxes?)

The only group who can be said to have really profited off this is pharma. Maybe they have orchestrated the whole thing, but I'd like to see some evidence first.

The pandemic doesn't need to have been deliberately engineered; it only needed to provide an opportunity for nefarious actors to exploit.

Unless you think we're living through the only crisis in history which powerful people haven't exploited to further their existing agendas.

Well again that's not particularly new, even outside a crisis, that's part of every day life. Your hardly a nefarious actor if you're not exploiting anything.

Why is this different from other instances of governments instituting laws or regulations for the sake of public safety, of which there are already many?

Are seatbelt laws a mass experiment in social control?

Are laws mandating wearing underwear in public "about asserting control over population and making them obey"?

> Are seatbelt laws a mass experiment in social control?

For this, or other instances you might come up with, you had a large consensus between the rulers and the ruled. No one questioned the motif behind seatbelt wearing or other public safety measures.

Do you have such a consensus for vaccine mandates, lockdowns, mask wearing or covid passports? It seems not. The only consensus you have is at the top between those who hold the power, resources and influence.

When you have skeptic voices and vaccine hesitant people among medical personnel we can t really talk about a consensus. If you can't even persuade some doctor or nurse to agree with your medical decisions without using coercion what should the average joe do? What does that tell us about the motifs of those that hold the decision power?