All Covid-19 measures are permanent, don't be a boiling frog!

What's wrong with the author mentioning the Great Reset?

And the answers to the MP's questions are in the tweet linked to in the article.

Do you think a government of a democratic nation should be entering into legally binding agreements with unelected organisations such as WEF? And not even consult the people before entering into the agreements.

But those agreements that the Dutch Government entered into with WEF are pretty important and far-reaching and I think the people should be consulted on them. And, as afar as I'm aware, the Dutch Government has so far not revealed what the agreements consist of. Do you think it should?

Dr. Michael Yeadon and others recently lodged a complaint with ICC: Covid-19: Pharmaceutical giants, Gates, Fauci, UK officials accused of crimes against humanity in International Criminal Court complaint - The Rio Times (riotimesonline.com)

From the complaint:

"Clade x and Event 201 Scenario

In May, 2018, the WEF partnered with Johns Hopkins to simulate a fictitious pandemic dubbed ‘Clade X’ (Appendix 12) to see how prepared the world be if ever faced with a catastrophic pandemic. A little over a year later, the WEF once again teamed-up with Johns Hopkins, along with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to stage another pandemic exercise called ‘Event 201’ in October, 2019 (Appendix 13). Both simulations concluded that the world wasn’t prepared for a global pandemic. A few short months following the conclusion of Event 201, which specifically simulated a coronavirus outbreak, the World Health Organization (WHO) officially declared that the coronavirus had reached pandemic status on March 11, 2020.

“The next severe pandemic will not only cause great illness and loss of life but could also trigger major cascading economic and societal consequences that could contribute greatly to global impact and suffering” — Event 201 pandemic simulation (October, 2019)

Since then, just about every scenario covered in the Clade X and Event 201 simulations has come into play, including:

Governments implementing lockdowns worldwide

The collapse of many industries

Growing mistrust between governments and citizens

A greater adoption of biometric surveillance technologies

Social media censorship in the name of combating misinformation

The desire to flood communication channels with “authoritative” sources

A global lack of personal protective equipment

The breakdown of international supply chains

Mass unemployment

Rioting in the streets

After the nightmare scenarios had fully materialized by mid-2020, the WEF founder declared

“now is the time for a great reset ” in June 2021.

We submit that it is highly unlikely, to the point that it is unbelievable, that this is purely excellent forecasting, planning, and modelling on the part of the WEF and partners that Clade X and Event 201 turned out to be so prophetic."

Do you think there's any merit in their complaint? And would you agree with them that it is 'unbelievable' "that this is purely excellent forecasting, planning, and modelling"?

I have said before that I don't know whether it's a conspiracy or not. But I don't buy the argument that tens of thousands would have to keep quiet for their to be a conspiracy. I don't know why it can't just be a small number of influential people. Even if it's just taking advantage of covid to make changes (and they could be good changes, but I argue that the people should be consulted on them). I don't see why that would be unusual. Many times it has been said that one should not let a good crisis go to waste.

It's another example of a temporary measure that ended up being permanent.

What is your issue with brianhere's post?

Sorry, I should have written that the areas that the agreements are in are important (we're not talking about an agreement on supplying plastic cups) Ergo, the agreements are potentially far-reaching.

Anchor: "Are we gonna get to the point where we won't have to wear masks on airplanes?"

Fauci: "I don't think so"

"I don't think so" is "no".

How do you interpret what he said?

Here's the relevant part from the interview: https://mobile.twitter.com/RossFeinstein/status/1472578144267812873?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1472578144267812873%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-29612398733423040159.ampproject.net%2F2112032204000%2Fframe.html

Those who are saying he's not saying they will be permanent presumably also don't think people having to take off their shoes going through security since 9/11 (actually not that big a deal, but another example of a measure that never went away) is permanent. Guess their argument is "It's only been 20 years. 20 years isn't permanent."