That's the Cliff note version, and it cannot be argued with.
1) Covid never had that high a level of risk, ESPECIALLY if treated early on.
2) There is no precedent for locking down a nation over a cold virus that the medical community refused to treat until the person was in critical condition.
3) Context. Look at who’s in charge and what they atpre trying to control. Is it the virus? Or the people?
4) The vax is not the only option for treating COVID, nor is it the best one. The government CHOSE to prohibit any other option so as to get their EUA for their ineffective so-called vax.
That's the Cliff note version, and it cannot be argued with.
Merck Statement on Ivermectin use During the COVID-19 Pandemic. I hope all will faithfully read the manufacture’s complete statement:
https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/
You have to look at the deaths that have piled up since the start of the pandemic:
World wide: 4,822,218
The USA: 722,254, which is the highest of any country.
The potential of COVID to mutate into a more deadly virus is what makes it an unpredictable virus worth serious consideration. Some might still argue that this disease has not entered the “grave” range that would warrant mandatory vaccination. The Spanish influenza killed many more (50–100 million), and it afflicted younger rather than older people, meaning even more “life years” were lost. It is not difficult to imagine a Superflu, or a bioengineered bug, killing 10% across all ages. This would certainly be a grave public health emergency where it is likely a mandatory vaccination would certainly be employed. Given its potential, it becomes a judgement call.