That's a good example of distinguishing between valid doubts/suspicions/concerns and CTs/CTers.
On the one hand we have doctors/health care workers/individuals reporting adverse effects, public health services investigating those reports by looking at medical records, algorithms constantly monitoring reportable conditions for any unexpected increases in outcomes, monitoring of databases (such as Eric's insurance data) for unexpected increases in outcomes, etc.
Then we have people like David who monitor anti-COVID CT websites instead, and credulously swallow completely unvetted "information".
.
Well, it's a lot more complicated than that. IMO, You're correct in what you say - as is David - but you both are presenting an overly simplistic picture of what is happening.
There are a lot of psychological processes impacting perception and behavior. These are both at the personal psychology level and in the realm of social psychology. The real world is
not a laboratory populated by totally rational, mission oriented, objective researchers performing controlled studies; the mission being to arrive at
the truth of a situation, like the safety and effectiveness of covid vaccines.
Crowd psychology is a fascinating and important area of study. This includes the well known phenomenon of "group think", but much more. Mass cognitive dissonance is another key factor.
What data one looks at, what results can be shared, how those results are received, whether or not they are further disseminated and, if further disseminated, how they are received by a wider audience, are all dependent on social psychological forces.
If there is a covid conspiracy (again, I'm on the fence still) then something like 95% of the conspiracy's implementation is being done by players consciously and subconsciously under the influence of social psychological forces and not because they are official members of a cabal of plotters with sinister ulterior motives.
Then there's politicians and they are very influential in many situations that become the subject of CTs. Politicians rarely act on scientific evidence. They have an entirely different set of criteria and are also heavily under the influence of social psychology.
AS an example, I studied the Vietnam war (I wasn't a participant in it b/c I was just a little kid at that time). By 1968 it was recognized that the war was unwinnable. This is amply proven in memories written by the decision makers, documents from FOIA requests and other sources. The data is very consistent on what was reported to and known by those at the highest levels, including President Johnson. Johnson really suffered over this knowledge. He has even written as much himself in his memories. It really tore him up and caused him decide to not for a second term. Yet he could not, politically, withdraw US troops. His escalation and continuation of the war despite knowing it could not be won was not to make the "military industrial complex" more wealthy nor attributable to any of the ulterior motives that CTists conceive of. It was pure political considerations. It took Nixon's election to be able to steer the political environment in a different direction and, even then, it was another three years to before troops were pretty much totally drawn down. Young Americans were being killed and maimed the entire time.
Covid could be something similar. The Who and Fauci came out with a terrifying announcement. That set a massive course of events into action. Why would Fauci and The Who do that? Professional distortions. Virus fighters fight viruses. They see the world through the narrow lens of epidemiology. No one moderated that perspective b/c they were afraid of being wrong and due to various emergent local political opportunities (like in the US, bludgeoning Trump).
From there, doing something about covid became the paramount focus of government. Emotional energy was invested in masking/distancing and then the vaccines. This is analogous to the Vietnam situation circa 1968.