It kind of makes sense in a way. If there were a mundane virus that you wanted to use to depress the economy and force a political change, you'd want to find a way to "dial down" the virus at a later date as arbitrarily as you dialed it up.

So if this mundane virus really was quite virulent and spread primarily through physical and close contact, but you maintained the narrative that it was "airborne" (which even the CDC says it's not, technically) then you would have more or less of a constant after some time since people would start wearing masks and socially distancing.

Then you could inflate the case counts with a testing mechanism that contains a "tuning" variable: amplifications. Want more cases reported? Turn up the variable. Want fewer? Turn it down.

But if you were to be honest and say that it was actually physical contact with surfaces that were the primary means of spread, you'd have to REALLY kill the economy to stop it dead in its tracks. No big box stores, no grocery stores, no Liquor Stores, no pot dispensaries, etc. Then you'd see it die out in a month.

But in the end, it is just a mundane virus. It's a mild flu, certainly milder than your run-of-the-mill seasonal influenza and it served its purpose.