It's not (just) smug mockery. It's taking a post that might have made a big impression on people, and giving a deliberately silly variant to make it clear how the logic is incorrect.

Just pointing out the faulty logic would've made for a boring post that many people wouldn't have bothered reading, and would risk being dismissed as hand-waving or rationalizing. Picking something eye-catching and obviously ridiculous keeps people's attention, and also can't be dismissed as mere rhetoric since the conclusion does actually hold.

Did you study the figures in the blog post? On what basis do you believe the concerns are "very valid"?

I do agree with you that mockery is unlikely to win hearts and minds, but the whole problem here is that the concerns are not valid and the people with concerns are not studying the figures and the people they're arguing against are not saying "just do as we say," and yet the concerns persist.

That and once you start making television appearances and publishing books, your claims are fair game.

You think that watching one film over another is more likely to cause you to die?

These same people are willing to take monoclonal antibodies which are human antibodies harvested from vaccinated genetically modified rodents. It’s the same spike protein antibody just produced in rodents instead of their bodies.