Ethical conundrum - So if you were in charge of a country, faced with a rapidly spreading global pandemic that has already been shown to kill or seriously affect very large numbers of people, what would you have done? Watch the death toll rise and say - 'do no harm'?
The clock was ticking and all leaders, medical professionals and regulators were under huge pressure to do something.
It might not have been the perfect solution but it did save lives, it did prevent serious illness and it did allow lifting of restrictions (and therefore recovery of economies) far sooner than if everyone had just done nothing.
Those that seek to blame the 'big 3' seem to ignore the reality of what was happening at the time and how quickly the virus was spreading.
The prophylactic injections (since you don't like the term vaccination) didn't stop me getting Covid but instead of spending weeks in hospital (as many of similarly aged countrymen did) or dying, I had a mild flu-like episode for 3 days. It's been the same with everyone I know.
For those that have had side effects, I am sorry but side effects go with any drug and are always a risk. Are you saying you wouldn't take any medicine that hasn't had a 100% clean bill of health record with zero side effects?
There's one state, and a few remote nations that did far less intrusive means to react to the covid virus. Gov Noem in ND chose more of a 'wait and see'. Had no lockdowns, very short mask mandate(quickly revoked), and went on record as getting any jab is a personal decision between the individual and their doctor(s). If we look at both covid mortality, and side effect mortality that can be linked to the virus and it's principle mRNA vax(that is not a vax) results, it appears that by population, ND is about in the middle of the pack for deaths from covid, and lower than the middle of the pack in deaths from side effects.
From this, I take the same approach as Gov Noem. First - do no harm. No school closures(child and teen mortality are tiny fractions from covid) were very short, on the ave of about 2 weeks to 'flatten the curve', which was another huge lie from the big three. Long term, I believe that state, and those nations that took a more reserved approach to the viral event will have better outcomes with a lower loss of man-years overall.
I followed my own advice and used the 'wait and see' approach, knowing that I risked getting covid, and knowing that my alternative therapies were violently objectionable to the main stream medical establishment. In July 2022 I did get covid, and I did use those prophylactic therapies(horse paste, HCQ, hypo-chlorinated vapor and lavage) and I did recover with no complications. I also avoided the potential for the laundry list of side effects from the jab. Any search online for the side effects reads like a 'don't worry, be happy' message of hope and change. While the reality is the VAERS reports of covid jab side effects is quite chilling. In Sept 2021 there were so many entries in the DB it actually broke the servers that were managing the VAERS application.
As for your conjecture on 'are you saying' it would be best not to presume or attempt to put words in my mouth that I did not state. As a veteran, and one who has travelled extensively to primitive places I've had many, many injections for known pathogens that were in fact +98% effective, and also had extremely low probability of side effects. MMR, and diptheria, pertussus, hep-a, hep-b, polio and so on. All of these were developed, tested, evaluated, modified(in some cases), tested again, and finally approved and promulgated. Those vaccines really do save lives and save man-years. What does it say about Pfizer that has a fully approved FDA regulated 'vaccine' for covid that they will not allow to be used by the gen public? Why would they choose to use the one which has zero liability from any patient damage or death when a perfectly good 'vaccine' is available? What does that tell the average Joe about Pfizer's goal and ultimate duty to the health of Americans?
So, what I am saying, is what I said before. Each person, go the extra mile, find the real info from both sides, even though the jab and only jab side is doing it's level best to hide, discriminate, lie, cheat and de-platform anyone with an alternative opinion of treating covid. Then, once all the info is presented, make the choice. Get the jab that does not stop the infection from invading the mucosal structures, and only treats the secondary and tertiary infection sites, and also does not stop transmission, or wait and see, and be prepared with alternative options.
Again, one man's opinion and these are of course rhetorical questions, so the answer is for the class to determine from their homework assignment.