Well now you're just making a "no true vaccine skepticism" argument. We heard concerns about massive increases in blood clots, in infertility, that it would kill more people than covid, that it changed your DNA, that it increased rates of miscarriage, a ton of wild and crazy things and even more mundane things like because you could still get COVID afterwards the shot was worthless. You can't just say "well, us REAL sceptics (sic) only believed a and b, but not c-z, therefore all the skepticism was correct."
Indeed. The only way any of the sceptics' claims have even a sliver of validity is as a motte-and-bailey fallacy of their original claims. For example, the claim that the vaccine doesn't work morphed into the claim that the vaccine doesn't stop transmission—a claim which wasn't even true until the delta strain showed up. Omicron has been a substantial challenge to vaccine efficacy (vaccines which, it's important to remember, are still only tuned to wild type COVID-19) but they're still providing significant protection as proven in large scale statistics.
> The Scottish and UK data (which they'll now stop publishing) show that the effectiveness against hospitalization and death of those with only two shots is now negative.
I certainly can't address all your points as we're quickly spiraling into incomprehensibility, but I don't think it's unfair to say that for the majority of those points as "there's at least a small chance they are possible". That doesn't warrant a victory lap as any sort of triumph of the skeptical viewpoint. You've shifted your argument from your doubts have been proven true to your doubts still existing, which is incredibly fitting for the your initial argument and vaccine skepticism in general.
Incomprehensibility? Where exactly is what I write incomprehensible? And the response to not understanding some points is that you don't address any points and declare victory? That's bad faith.
Meanwhile my post fades into grey soon to be invisible and then the next person like you can claim that they just don't see those science-minded vaccine skepticism comments / posts.
> You've shifted your argument from your doubts have been proven true
No, that's not what I did. I showed that there is actually evidence for each of the points you brought up.
