I think this level of privileging the antivaxxer rhetoric is just irresponsible - if it would help, maybe. But they are not arguing in good faith, out of good information, or any other good impulse. Similarly to the Flat Earth bullshit and most other CTs you can point at, it's about feeling superior. Moon landing and flat earth CTs are almost lethally cringe but patchouli bullshit instead of vaccines means people literally die in droves, of a solved problem.
My point is that it never strengthens your position to disagree with things you know are correct, just to try to make a point. If your initial counter argument is “vaccines don’t cause deadly side effects”, you can immediately be brushed off as having no idea what you’re talking about, since it’s well documented that they do.
Huh? Typo or false syllogism? You wouldn't get much of an opportunity to disagree with anything correct, they're antivaxxers. Anyway, you wouldn't deny that. You would, even more correctly, point out that the 'rona was still the worse deal if you were actually rationally worried about any outcome. This is the sort of thing I mean when I say jumping through hoops to try and make something reasonable out of a fundamentally unreasonable position. It isn't going to help, because you cannot keep it up. Sooner or later you'll reach the end of where carefully not discussing anything in the discussion can get you.