'Ronajab is 100% safe: We know through VARS it isn't, but whatever, some people hold this position. Obviously, if this situation is true, no problems! Even if there are minor problems, 95% survival rate means half the country isn't going to die, only 5% of it is, so your worry would, strictly speaking, be overblown.
'Ronajab is gov't depopulation plot: You don't kill with injections, you do that with bullets. You STERILIZE with injections, as Canada knows from all the ones it has done on its own native peoples. If that is their aim, half the world ain't dying in a decade, as it would impact birth rates, not death rates.
'Ronajab is highly untested and leads to many ailments: If it leads to cancers, those will usually take more than a decade to show. Even smoking, which is basically direct carcinogen insertion, takes multiple decades in most. There's a gradiant, of course, some sooner than others, but if it were 2 years, that "sooner" would be now visible. Other ailments may be faster, but again, there's ranges to these things because people have different makeups, it would be longer term than 2 years for sure.
'Ronajab is "safe" in the same way Thaliomide was "safe", passing on the horrific side effects to the yet unborn: Much like #2, while this is horrific birth defects and population mutilation, it is not the death of the currently living.
So, the problem that I keep running into with the sterilization scenario is that the only people who will not be sterilized would be the types who trust the government the least. It would seem to be counter-intuitive in the long run.
Using a vaccine for any of the conspiratorial purposes seems counter-intuitive to any ill ends. Unless they really wanted to purge the sheeple of the world, but that just doesn't seem wise/likely.
The situation you suggest is improbable.
Four commonly held internet position scenarios:
'Ronajab is 100% safe: We know through VARS it isn't, but whatever, some people hold this position. Obviously, if this situation is true, no problems! Even if there are minor problems, 95% survival rate means half the country isn't going to die, only 5% of it is, so your worry would, strictly speaking, be overblown.
'Ronajab is gov't depopulation plot: You don't kill with injections, you do that with bullets. You STERILIZE with injections, as Canada knows from all the ones it has done on its own native peoples. If that is their aim, half the world ain't dying in a decade, as it would impact birth rates, not death rates.
'Ronajab is highly untested and leads to many ailments: If it leads to cancers, those will usually take more than a decade to show. Even smoking, which is basically direct carcinogen insertion, takes multiple decades in most. There's a gradiant, of course, some sooner than others, but if it were 2 years, that "sooner" would be now visible. Other ailments may be faster, but again, there's ranges to these things because people have different makeups, it would be longer term than 2 years for sure.
'Ronajab is "safe" in the same way Thaliomide was "safe", passing on the horrific side effects to the yet unborn: Much like #2, while this is horrific birth defects and population mutilation, it is not the death of the currently living.
So, the problem that I keep running into with the sterilization scenario is that the only people who will not be sterilized would be the types who trust the government the least. It would seem to be counter-intuitive in the long run.
Using a vaccine for any of the conspiratorial purposes seems counter-intuitive to any ill ends. Unless they really wanted to purge the sheeple of the world, but that just doesn't seem wise/likely.
Unless we've misunderstood their motives the entire time.