I'm going to respond to a few folks so I'll put names at the start of quotes for clarity.

Tyson: He was hospitalized yesterday with Covid pneumonia
I'm holding out hope for him. Most people recover even after hospitalisation and he's in the hands of experts. They've learned a lot over the last couple of years.

DD: if you look at the US, hospitals were almost never overwhelmed though they came close
I'm not sure whether you meant to put "almost never" there because it substantially undermines your argument. For that reason I'm going to respond as if you'd basically asserted that hospitals came close to being overwhelmed (just trying to avoid putting words in your mouth). I think you can only assert that if your definition of "overwhelmed" is the inability of hospitals to put covid patients in beds but it's not just about that, it's about the ability to carry out healthcare in general and they have definitely been overwhelmed in that regard. My mother has had two operations postponed due to covid pressure and by father has had one. They weren't life or death matters but it has meant that my father had to live with extreme discomfort for a couple months longer than he would normally have had to. My next door neighbour had chronic respiratory issues and had her regular treatment pushed back. She died of complications in June and, although I can't be sure that it's attributable to that delayed treatment I'm pretty sure it didn't help. The extra pressure on the health service is real.

DD: This is exaggeration.
It wasn't an exaggeration at all, I said it helps prevent the spread and it does. It prevents them by much higher percentages than you're quoting too with fully vaccinated people being 91% less likely to be infected according to the CDC I think some of the confusion here comes from the difference in protection from infection vs transmission. For anyone who's going to dismiss the CDC as part of the conspiracy, here's a really good analysis by FullFact, an independent fact checker.

DD: Your definition of risk is different from my definition of risk which is why these decisions should be made on an individual basis
I think we're essentially into the libertarian debate here and, for me, the Rubicon is whether your choice (or your definition of risk) impacts me. In this case it does and potentially lethally so. For that reason I don't think your individualism trumps the good of society in this particular instance.

DD: I think that more recently it has famously been against Joe Rogan
I think I agree with you here. I think there was some pretty disingenuous rhetoric on both sides (Rogan often implied a much greater efficacy for some of the alternative treatments than they merited, even if he didn't outright state it) but I agree that some sections of the media took some of his statements and exaggerated them way beyond anything he implied and certainly beyond anything he explicitly said.

But seriously, we're not arguing whether Joe Rogan was treated unfairly for touting some unproven treatments. What's being proposed in this thread is that the virus was deliberately created and released in order to make some (as yet unidentified) group of billionaires extra cash. That this group of millionaires was willing to kill millions of people for that extra cash. That the media is in on this plan and running interference for it. That the Chinese government didn't know about it even though it took place in one of their labs. That it's somehow connected to Bill Gates. That it's somehow connected to the Feminist Agenda and the Gay Agenda (it strayed into some particularly hateful territory there). These are the claims that are explicitly being made in this thread. If that stuff's not worth of dismissal then what is?

Dil: Sure feels like a tussle between "try to be part of the solution" and "screw you, and your little dog too."
I'm 100% with you there.

Eduardo: I know. I wasn't talking about you.
I didn't think you were talking about me. But you did bring up Bill Gates and then later say that anyone who brought up Bill Gates should be immediately disregarded. What obvious conclusion do you think we should draw from that?