Seems accurate. Viruses have to meet a delicate balance of not being too deadly in order to propagate sustainably. Reduce the severity of symptoms without reducing spread and you remove the incentive to stay minimally deadly. The virus can now evolve to be extremely deadly and still sustainably propagate. Being too deadly is what prevents ebola from being a serious issue for example.

The technique of feeding someone poison slowly and constantly until they become dependent, and the ceasing providing the poison so the person dies, is an old trick.

You ask my thoughts and I think the technique in your theory is practicable. I also am aware that certain long-lived organizations have called for controlling the human population (Georgia Guidestones, eugenics, Margaret Sanger/Planned Parenthood to throw out a few crumbs). I am also aware that the more "esoteric" and "religious" grouos think we are either destined to go through an apocalypse shortly or will benefit as a species if we contrive to make one happen (Great Reset, Build Back Better, antichrist/messiah narratives for more crumbs).

Final thought: fuck you could be right. Either through design or accident this could come to pass.

For those that don't understand:

The 'vaccine' doesn't protect against getting infected. It reduces the symptoms when you do get infected.

The consequences of it, is is spreads silently in the vaccinated population, while ramping up how deadly it is to those unvaccinated, until a "new strain" emerges that kills anyone who doesn't have the vaccine--which would have otherwise protected them by reducing symptoms to a level that weren't deadly.

If the Marek chicken virus vaccine doesn’t cure the chicken of the disease but only ‘reduces symptoms’, then why are vaccinated chickens not dying too?
If there’s no genetic material of the virus introduced to one’s immune system, as with a traditional vaccine, then what is going to prompt the virus to mutate? This is looking like fear-mongering horseshit to me. A ‘leaky vaccine’ is not a vaccine at all. Vaccines, by definition, prevent infection and transmission. I’m not questioning the analogy between Marek’s disease and SARS CoV 2; I question the wiki on the history of Marek’s disease, if only because the language is dishonest and vague. The analogy between the two is sound in that they’re both fishy diseases with fishy ‘vaccines’.

IMO this is a test run for a "mark of the beast" approach to governance. A trial run to see how many sheep will comply with jab mandates. There will be an attempt to restrict travel, work, etc. But it will fail.

Oy vey get you shot before it becomes scarce goyim!

No thanks. We're not chicken, no one will ever die from this.

So there's a group of people that treat animals like that and if they also think of people like animals then what doesn't work actually does.