At the start of the pandemic we could not be sure what was the silent fraction of cases. It needed seroprevalence surverys - and then accurate longitudinal random sample seroprevalence and antigen surveys like ONS - to be sure. This matters because if as antivaxxers claimed for a long time the silent cases are a very large fraction of all cases the real deadliness of COVID is much lower. Just a note here that even when the real scientists were not certain - and the data from individual seroprevalence surveys was all over the place - the guestimate of around 50% asymptomatic proved right - the antivax hope of X10 or so proved wrong.
So we see the pattern repeated again. In order to make vastly improved deaths data fit their fantasies the antivaxers (and W - anti-vaxer-lite) have to suppose delta is muhc less deadly than alpha - so that then the vaccine does not help. To do that, they have to suppose a much larger X6 level of silent infection. Just as before, when the data is not entirely certain they choose an unlikely outlier that supports their fixed views.
Luckily, now, we have much better data than then, so it is easy to show that these anti-vax-lite memes are false.
The anti-vaxers here - and the anti-vax lite contingent - operate under the assumption that all the research done by real researchers on the pandemic is incompetent or corrupt. They either don't bother to read it, or do read it and dismiss it. That puts them in a very difficult position because it is so much work accurately to work this stuff out for yourself. You can see also from the repeated mistakes W makes that they consistently work things out for themselves wrong, using partial data, wrong statistics, or in some cases I guess just wishful thinking. In factt I don't think W is interested in working stuff out, he is interested only in finding evidence that fits his predetermined views of an alphabet mafia throughout the developed world deliberately killing people.
It is just a shame that scientific correctness of otehrwise makes no difference to the antivax crowd. whereas real people 9and even me) have to work stuff out and expalin any inconsistencies - the antivaxers just cherry-pick some isolated numbers that sound good.
You can maybe tell that I despise that behaviour. It is dishonest and unprofessional. It is not that scientists have no biases. rather it is that they do their best - if they are any good - to be fair, curious of possible errors, check as much as possible, and not cherry-pick stuff that fits biases. The anti-vaxxers are not, by that benchmark, good scientists.