NY Governor Cuomo is establishing a COVID passport that will show vaccination or a recent negative test. It will serve as permission to enter events or venues.
Will this passport be efficacious, or is its purpose to get us accustomed to a “your papers please” way of life?
Allegedly, the combination of people with vaccinations and those recovered from infection have, or are, bringing about “herd immunity.” If so, what is the point of a passport?
There are credible reports that some who have been vaccinated have nevertheless come down with COVID, which raises doubt about the efficacy of the vaccine. There are other reports that antibodies produced by the vaccines are not long lasting.
How recent must the COVID test be to make the passport valid. A person could have a negative test and catch COVID on the way home.
If the passport relies on a negative test, the passport will have to expire after some designated period unless the passport is renewed with a new test.
There is also the problem that the widely used PCR test produces false negatives and false positives. In other words, is the information on which the passport is issued valid information?
We can laugh at the passport as a silly over-reaction to a virus that in most cases is hardly more dangerous than flu, or we can understand it as a control measure over our freedom of movement and association. We are the safer if we view it as the latter.
Police already have too much power to invade homes without warrants and to stop and search people on the streets without warrants. “Probable cause” has been used to curtail civil liberty.
I am convinced that no health purpose will be served by COVID passports, and that the public should protest the introduction of a Soviet-style internal passport.
Once established, the COVID passport will be a boon for Big Pharma. A yearly booster shot will be decreed, and without it your passport will expire.
Keep in mind that Florida avoided lockdowns and mask mandates and has no worse infection and death rate than lockdown states.
Notice also that many highly qualified experts have criticized the lockdowns, mask mandates, use of untested vaccines, and the prohibition on using safe effective treatments such as HCQ and Ivermectin.
Why were their voices censored and the information kept from the public?
The only explanation I can think of is that COVID is being used for an unstated agenda. We should not be deceived into cooperating with this unstated agenda.
A democracy that censors expert testimony and prohibits public debate is well on its way to a police state.
A public that can be stampeeded by orchestrated fear into being jabbed with vaccines that could be more dangerous than COVID is not a public that can expect to remain in freedom.
Source: Paul Crig Roberts