Second, a viable alternative to vaccination wouldn't be a bad thing. But Ivermectin is not that. So suggesting that it is is a bad thing.
And no one is suggesting you accept vaccines as "the only way forward". Pfizer is developing a treatment for after you've caught COVID. Work is being done in that direction. Currently, vaccines are your best safety measure. That's been borne out by the data available. Any way you look at it.
You do not understand vaccines. It's incredible to me that we still have to be explaining this more than two years into the pandemic, but vaccines are not magical fixes. The COVID-19 vaccine exists to strongly reduce your symptoms in case of infection. The effect does not stay at full efficacy forever and as new strains develop over time they may become less protective still.
> Almost make me feel like they're scared of someone finding a better way out of this.
Yeah, obviously there's a giant conspiracy going on to prevent you from finding out about the magical solution to COVID-19. Can't possibly be that your understanding of how stuff works is lacking.
But pitching Ivermectin as an alternative to vaccination is bad because Ivermectin does not work and the vaccines work very well.
What's wrong with booster shots? I'm going through tick-borne encephalitis vaccination course right now, and it's 3 shots in the first 6 months, fourth shot after 3 years, and then a shot every 5 years. I also take an influenza booster annually. I'll a COVID one to the list too. Because it works!
Can you elaborate? Why does the number of booster shots tell you anything about the right way to treat this pandemic? I honestly don't follow.