The claim's not that a few over-broad statements were made with colloquial application of absolutes during conversations or interviews, which they definitely were, but that this was the official line and that claiming you could contract the virus was suppressed—yet every time I see examples provided, the exaggerated statements are accompanied shortly before or after by prepared, official communication that in fact the vaccines are extremely effective at preventing severe disease and hospitalization, but not perfectly so, and that infection is still possible. If the original claim were true, those statements should either have been different, or should have been censored.
So sure, it'd be nice if politicians were more precise when answering questions (though it's not gonna happen, for one thing because people don't talk like that) but that's not what I've seen claimed in these cases—it's that these few over-broad statements were the official line, and that dissent from it was smacked down. This runs contrary both to my recollection of events, and to evidence I've seen the few times I've seen the topic come up on here, including this link.
So sure, it'd be nice if politicians were more precise when answering questions (though it's not gonna happen, for one thing because people don't talk like that) but that's not what I've seen claimed in these cases—it's that these few over-broad statements were the official line, and that dissent from it was smacked down. This runs contrary both to my recollection of events, and to evidence I've seen the few times I've seen the topic come up on here, including this link.