I've upvoted this because it's a series of small misrepresentations, carefully and persuasively added up to a suggest a very large lie; a seductive political hit piece masquerading as science writing. Such things should be dragged into the light of day, where they can be sterilized by the sun.

(Of course if you want the subtext, the comment section possesses no such subtlety; it's populated by New World Order types blaming it all on a nebulous Them - discussion endorsed by the author)

I'm far too lazy to offer a blow-by-blow rebuttal - although I encourage everyone to view some of the discussions for the other submissions from this domain - but I can offer some points of dissonance:

* Vaccines dramatically reduce not just the likelihood but also the severity of infection

* "Long covid" is very much a thing - deaths are not the final metric for social impact

* In the event of a breakthrough infection, vaccines lower the risk of "long covid" to about half

* Lockdowns have an obvious and dramatic effect on transmission

* Infection rates have trended upwards yet death rates have trended downwards, inconsistent with the assertion that vaccines have "failed to do much about anything".

* The assertion "we don’t know the true rate of Corona-induced myocarditis in children, because most of infections go unnoticed" is unfalsifiable

* The nevertheless confident immediate subsequent description of said risk as "near-zero"

* The immediately preceding description of the rarity of vaccine side effects as "alleged", with no explanation offered for the skepticism