From an evidence-based perspective, it's preposterous primarily because it originates from the 2021 Cohen paper in which they open with unequivocal assertions that immunity debt is real, then walk back on the literal last page to apply the term MAY to their theory. If it started from an instance of a classic motte-and-bailey fallacy, it gets automatically thrown on the mountain of failed research attempts. Because we don't have time to give every sqawk its full due. Particularly if the sqawker isn't even taking their own ideas seriously.

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-medical-critical-...

The fact that it conceptually makes sense to a layperson is irrelevant in a truth-seeking context. Much for the same reason that a theory that Google functions by paid human labors manually assigning results to search queries they predict you will search ahead of time "making sense" to a layperson is meaningless in discovering how the system actually works.