Most of what you say makes sense. That is a good start. Yes very true, we do not understand the nature of this virus. The authorities seems to have a better grasp from their policies don't you think? Perfectly healthy young to infant are forced to jab. Initially they were so sure about the vaccination that they declare publicly in the 4 corners of the world that the vaccines prevents infection 100%. That didn't work out.
So they decided that booster is the way forward. Increasingly the message is now softened to prevention of hospitalisation and death for the jabbed with boosters. Some local authority started shortening 2nd and booster jab intervals.
Either the virus dominant strain are evolving to be more infectious and less deadly or the boosters are preventing infection and deaths and all the inbetween. The data is not absolute which one is truer. But health policies are, they know just like their initial vaccine promotion what works and messaging evolved like the virus but mandates have gone extreme.
It is political science then medical one is what I feel is happening.
If all those hospital incentives are true, it reinforces profiteering. Remdesivir is better than ivermectin. Vaccines is better than natural immunity with or without supplements. It does appear medical studies are only trying to fix the damage in general. If you get a heart attack, fix it and it is done. Don't worry about weight, alcohol, smoking, junk food, etc.
If these vaccines are so good, you don't need mandate and coerce. Somewhere the system broke down. All about risk v reward, not a one size fits all. Cormorbidity definitely needs the jab to reduce the risks.
