If you are holding out for truth before you make a decision about this topic, I can pretty much guarantee you can be relied on to do nothing. If the author is

If you are holding out for truth before you make a decision about this topic, I can pretty much guarantee you can be relied on to do nothing. If the author is actively deceptive, they should be recognized for it, and the scheme they're using to mislead people should be recognized as a fairly sophisticated dark pattern that implies a more sophistcated rationale for being deceptive. They claim to be a data scientist and former biologist, which if true implies at least some habit of rigor in forming opinions about these issues. Almost nothing about the shots would be controversial if there were, a) no mandates for shots or masks, b) no vaccine passports, and c) consistency and transparency from pandemic response leadership. The instinct to challenge the official narratives is a good one. Trouble is, a, b and c are not the case, and even if this writer has a skewed view of facts, there is ample reason to litigate the facts one can find against these other factors. If they are being dishonest (as one commenter noted that the author had cropped out some non-vaccine related deaths that formed the top line number in the a table, which is dodgy) I'd be interested in other examples of dishonesty in the article, and then perhaps a concrete motive. I do know that politicians are making their covid policy decisions based on polling data, independent of any biological scientific input at all. I also know that the epidemiologists in public health behind the policies are social scientists with a very specific worldview, and are not held to the standards of competent infectious disease specialists. The motive for authorities to produce crappy strawman opposition to policies is also apparent, it's a pretty standard tactic on political campaigns, so when the objective is merely to neutralize opposition, this would be par for the course on disinformation. The only meaningful policy question with any long term consequence is whether we proceed with vaccine passports as a digital identity or not, and imo, while I don't have most of the facts on biology and vaccines, I am very much aware of the conseqeunces of internal passport systems, and articles challenging the pretexts being used by authorities to implement them should be welcomed. If the writer is actively dishonest, I'd treat them as just more propaganda, and that the authorities are tipping their hand on how vulnerable their passport pretexts are. If the writer is being honest and can address how they represented that table, it's still worth recognizing that the tide of popular opinion has turned on mRNA therapies and mandates.