It was always about long term implications. Certainly, it could be that the jab works to prevent some severe disease, but then one would be choosing it to save themselves. 

Long term effects be damned, as well as any consideration as to how one's immune system is primed to behave differently, long term fertility, cancer risk, neurological effects, changes to current or future cross-reactive immunity, and so on.

These cannot be known, and any could take precedence over the benefit one might have in terms of mitigating severe disease from the target pathogen

So is it all just for profit, then? How does all this come to pass? Is it an explicit theft?

Depends on what you mean.

Obviously, none of these undertakings are even viable if they cannot yield a profit, or the production capacity wouldn't exist. These types of mechanisms are all set up as part fo emergency preparedness planning, which is achieved through intergovernmental agencies at the global scale. THat these agreements constitute a form of evidence supporting profit motive is akin to calling it a conspirac. These are all things that can be organized in plain sight, therefore there are plenty of common sense reasons for accepting them.

We have already heard key politicians declare that COVID is a unique opportunity to initiate and advance operations otherwise unfeasible, unviable or less interesting. We should stop our habit of failing to criticize demands and proposals under general fear of labeled conspiracy theorist [CT] because we can see that there needn't be a conspiracy when those who stand to benefit garnish their bias with hybris as they gloat in open sight without the most minimal semblance of self awareness necessary to acknowledge that risks associated with gamefying situational response (in all its terms -> disaster relief, emergency prepraedness, sustainable development).

So, this brings us to the next question: Why are we so uncritical?
Who are we talking about? Some questions:
1. Do you support it?
2. Consequences of public visibility on the matter
3. Means by whihc one is affected
4. Aggregate effect toward overall bias

- In theory we could encode an algorithm to evaluate bias and capability towards forming opinions on matters, and one might say that is what this totalitarian transformation is promising, and that that is actually a very good thing because we can finally be granted a procedure for living our lives that is fair and ethical, but that is so obviously doomed to failure - perhaps best described as a position of faith:
  - They have faith that whoever produces the algorithm is objective
  - Faith that an algorithm can be written
  - Faith that that the algorithm written isn't one of several, any of which might be better, or they are all the same (functionally), or otherwise?
  - Faith that there is only one algorithm possible
  - Faith that writing an aglorithm targeted
  - Faith that to produce an intended outcome targetting himself
  - w