Each passing day the anti-vaccine talking points get more and more nonsensical and flat out incorrect.
And yet they gain traction.
It points to a deep distrust in institutions and informational gatekeeping and dissemination. I don't know what to say other than that. I believe the vaccines were a godsend and I think coming into the thread asking if one has stopped drinking the Kool-Aid is simply inflammatory and looking to instigate something. It's also a mark of hubris that is completely unwarranted and an example of being horribly wrong while being indignantly above it all—one of the worst of that kind I've seen in a while.
We could get into a long back and forth as to what it "points to". I'll simply say that the research on this virus and the study on this virus is/was, for the most part, transparent if one took the time to find it and follow it. If people settled on being lead around by others on it, the bold may be the result, but that's on those who chose to go that route. Maybe in the future, they'll follow the studies and scientists more than talking heads trying to get clicks on web page who's primary goals are getting traffic through their sites and NOT getting out correct information.
The problem is that this required doing your own research. The institutions that were supposed to provide reliable information failed to do so in pretty spectacular fashion.
For example, we were told that the vaccines would prevent transmission. They obviously don't. Now, I know this is where people want to throw up their hands and talk about reducing the severity of symptoms and herd immunity* and I get all that, but the bottom line is that society is made up of human beings, and some of those human beings are going to tune you out when you consistently tell them stuff that turns out to be untrue. The poster that everybody is mad about is a product of an environment that was created, in part, by our institutions. Maybe instead of blaming him, we should blame them instead.
* There is a strong case to be made for weak vaccines. We all know that the covid vaccines only provide weak protection against infection. So if I get vaccinated and nobody else does, my vaccine isn't going to do me much good. But if everybody gets vaccinated, or if the whole population is either vaccinated or has antibodies from prior infection, our combined "weak" protection becomes pretty robust at the population level. But that's not the argument that was made for vaccination -- the case that was actuallly made was "If you get the vaccine, you won't get covid." I strongly suspect that the people in charge intentionally decided that the truth was too complicated and they were hoping that a white lie would be more effective in motivating the behavior that they wanted. They did that over and over throughout the pandemic, and it was disaterous in terms of social trust.