That first paragraph really isn't fair because R0 has changed. So of course scientific opinion has changed. That's not same thing as pretending and then vilifying.
Your second paragraph is eliding a lousy "therefore" - obviously, the cost of shooting for natural immunity versus vaccination is that you have to experience the actual disease and all its risks. Survivorship bias.
Scientists are allowed and should be allowed to say "the data changed, so our recommendation changed". Politicians and health leaders have a responsibility to interpret the data and develop communications and policies that build trust and inform the public. It's a failure on the part of the latter when they make promises to the public that they know are not guaranteed.
They have made definitive statements that are wrong too many times in the past year and a half. That is a massive failure. The average joe has nowhere near the time nor expertise required to interpret the scientific data out there, so trust is everything for them. At some point, you run out of the good will required to say "ok, I'll trust you again". Maintaining trust is a leader's most important job.
Your second paragraph is eliding a lousy "therefore" - obviously, the cost of shooting for natural immunity versus vaccination is that you have to experience the actual disease and all its risks. Survivorship bias.