I only ever have said those with natural immunity don't need to get vaxxed because that's what the data says.
Also, if you don't think natural immunity is good enough, then by basic logic, you don't think the vax is good enough either because vaccines just create the same (not exactly the same obviously but close enough) immunity as getting the virus without the danger of getting the virus.
It is unclear how much protection any form of immunity (vaccine or covid infection) provides. Natural immunity may be more variable than the vaccine. There is evidence immunity weakens over time irrespective of source of immunity, plus that it varies by individual. It is thus a reasonable thing to ask people to vaccinate to take fewer chances. In particular, even if there is enough immunity to protect the individual, a stronger response should reduce that individual's infectiousness to others.
Secondly, good messaging means clarity and simplicity. "Get vaccinated" is the clearest and simplest it gets. Aside from genuine medical exemptions, the more you muddy the waters, the more it confuses and provides gaps for people to justify opting out.
I couldn't care less about the reputations of public health experts, I care about the truth and what actually makes sense.
Which is a shame considering you've spouted so much rampant bullshit over the last few years.
The reputations of public health experts are really important, because trust is essential to convincing people. It is not that Fauci is faultless, it is understanding that he has done his best to pass on evidence-based knowledge in good faith for the public good. Fauci is being heavily smeared because he offended against the cult of Trump for disagreeing with their orange god, by anti-government fanatics, and cranks with stupid ideas about what's good for people and think they know better. The result of this smear campaign is to greatly reduce the effectiveness of someone who (as far as I can see) is a well-meaning and responsible public servant.
Please show me a risk-benefit analysis that shows lockdowns actually saved more life because that doesn't exist.
What cost-benefit analyses actually show and what their limitations are has been pointed out to you multiple times. You don't read, you don't care. They're just another piece of flotsam you cling to whilst pretending the ship you've been sailing hasn't long since sunk.
Show me a randomized trial that masks work because that doesn't exist.
The mask argument is all but over, and you are on the losing side. Give it up. You've been moving goalposts and trying to discount evidence as it suits you for months, and it's just pathetic watching you squirm.
Funny how you won't answer my question about which message cost more lives
Because it's not usefully answerable. It's the pointless bleating of someone who doesn't understand how stuff works.
People would have died irrespective of what Fauci said: there is no counterfactual to work out how much difference what he said makes. Remembering here particularly that Fauci is a government advisor, and advisors do not decide policy. In terms of Joe Rogan, it is in practice impossible to separate out what effect he has from all the other societal inputs going into people's opinion.
My general stance though is that I have more respect for people who make the wrong decision because they don't have enough information to know better, and people who make the wrong decisions when they do have the information to know better. In which case, Fauci is leagues ahead of Rogan.