Static typing does not allow you to refactor code with confidence that you didn't break the application logic. Only automated tests can do that, regardless of type system.

Sure. But an awful lot of failures in refactoring in dynamically typed languages would be avoided by a static type system.

As it happens, I am a Rust fanboy with all that entails, so I (like everyone else in such discussions) am clearly biased.

My point was in jest, as the “;-)” (because HN simply discarded a U+1F609) indicated.

static type systems != unit tests

That's what strong type systems are about. A strong explicit dynamic type system with appropriate tests can track down bugs more easily than a statically typed weak type system.