I just thought of something. We know for a fact that Covid was a result of gain of function research, and that even in the early days, the mortality rate of infants and toddlers was almost 0, which is quite different than what we see with the flu, where they are more vulnerable.
This makes me wonder if the primary purpose was to cull the elderly in the first place. Given the problems with funding Social Security and Medicare, it certainly would cut down a lot of those costs.
Also, since it was set loose earlier than planned, it makes sense that it was not quite as deadly as they were wanting it to be.
Along with that, the vaxx causing heart issues might be fully intended too, as it would allow them to kill the elderly once more without raising suspicion. Pushing it for everyone was indeed retarded, but I do see the booster campaigns targeting the elderly the most, which supports that theory too.
@houseoftolstoy Children aren't vulnerable to the flu either. Children get sick a lot because they are growing but they aren't vulnerable.
CDC reported 199 child flu deaths in 2019. Before that 188.
Under age 18 accounts for 20% of population.
That's 60 million.
199 deaths from 60 million is...
0%
CDC screenshot
@houseoftolstoy For certain the vaxx wasn't there to help.
@redmaple Fair enough. Though I do still think that a disease/vaxx that kills the elderly at a disproportional rate (which is many of them, granted) would be quite the convenience to governments trying to not go bankrupt with the welfare state. Rather than us being able to have a conversation about ending the welfare, we are just going to have a lot of people die.
That is, if my theory is correct.