This sort of reminds me of the whole thing with lockdowns 1) It is noted that governments could, in theory, be requiring and enforcing lockdowns not because th

This sort of reminds me of the whole thing with lockdowns 1) It is noted that governments could, in theory, be requiring and enforcing lockdowns not because they're scientifically better for public health. Widely dismissed as silly and "anti-science". 2) Some scientists come out in opposition of lockdowns, evidence from other countries shows that lockdowns don't help, both get banned/censored or painted as lunacy. 3) Years later, it becomes public knowledge that lockdowns did not in fact help, and countries that had zero lockdown policy did just the same as those that did. It is also too hard to know what went through exactly and to hold people accountable, technically everyone was complicit. 4) The situation persists because it is convenient to the people in charge. 5) It gets turned turned on political dissidents. If a government wants to get rid of your noise, they can paint you as an endangerment to public health and suggest to the public to "cancel" you by banning or by being painted as a "conspiracy theorist". Australia is following this plan almost to the letter at the moment. People getting arrested for not wearing a mask while they're with their daughters and government officials "advising" the public not to talk to their neighbors and to avoid interacting with them socially, even in public, and even if wearing a mask. People are still treating this like "oh we don't know what's going on" or "it's still dangerous" while in a few decade or so, the way we're headed (if nothing changes) seems to be a form of soft-occupation by CCP ideology. It'll be too late to change anything, and then people wonder how can the Australian government pass a bill that allows police to add, delete, and modify your data during an investigation.