You are assuming information not in evidence. The history of infectious diseases is that those that start off killing their hosts ... evolve to become less lethal.
Thanks for your response. I hope no one assumes that anything I am posting is founded in anyway in facts. I'm simply brainstorming to see if there is any logic to my thoughts.
But the primary reason an infectious disease might wish to kill its host if that is how it might enlarge the pool of those infected. For example if the carcass would be consumed by multiple potential hosts.
I agree if the death of the host enhances the chances of the organism migrating to new hosts. But what if the death of the host is a guarantee that the organism will die at the same time.
Would it then serve any useful purpose for the organism to kill its host? I wonder if the organism could be programmed to do this only if by doing so, it would indirectly help like organisms in other hosts to better survive.
It is as if the organism has achieved the role of husbandry, selectively breeding hosts who are most suitable to the essential needs of the organism, even if the process calls for many members of the organism's family to sacrifice themselves.