They're using "argument in the alternative" [1], which is logically sound. The goal isn't to show that any particular alternative theory is true, just to show that the mainstream one is false.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_in_the_alternative

It's "logically sound" in the sense that it's sound by disjunctive introduction. For most people, that's not an interesting sense of "soundness" (you haven't told me anything interesting by saying "it's either cloudy or not cloudy" when I've asked you for the weather.)

No they're not.

> with the goal of showing that regardless of interpretation there is no reasonable conclusion other than the advocate's

For that part of the definition to apply, there must be some particular conclusion that the advocate supports. It's multiple arguments for a single conclusion, whereas what I was observing is multiple separate conclusions. That's pure contrarianism, neither skepticism nor argument in the alternative.

Isn't "the media and government have been intentionally exaggerating the danger of COVID, and most of the mitigation strategies being mandated shouldn't be" the conclusion?

Not really. The second part alone ("most of ... shouldn't be") might qualify as skepticism, particularly if the reason given is lack of sufficient evidence, but few stop there. Most go on to express one or more other reasons and/or conclusions, such as "intentionally exaggerating" which is its own claim requiring its own proof. Also, if that's the only reason given then it can't be argument in the alternative because there are no alternative routes given to the desired conclusion. Just one route to one conclusion, contrary to the original proposition but itself lacking proof.

Plenty of the COVID skeptic types I know, and myself included, have expressed exactly the sentiment the GP described. In a way, it's nice to be vindicated after all this. I don't think it really makes a difference whether that sentiment fits into the exact Wikipedia definition you're arguing about, but it's obvious to me it's been a common one for the entirety of the pandemic.

How are skeptics vindicated by the second part? I have always agreed with both of those skeptic things however I come from a different pov than most, most likely.

Only the first has been closer to being true. We don’t have a decently sized population that did very little if anything wrt mitigating like the rest of the world. Just because the mitigation mandates have been too much doesn’t make the average skeptics correct. Considering a large amount of skeptics want little if any mitigation efforts. It’s hard to say the world would be in a better place if the skeptics decided everything. I don’t see how it wouldn’t be a shit show if that was the case.

My real skepticism, having been vaccinated and boosted, is that institutions like the CDC, FDA, and Pfizer are just being lazy foot-draggers about bringing out vaccines updated for specific variants.

And whatever happened to the project of vaccines that provide full, sterilizing immunity? Last publication I can find is for a study in freaking mice[1]. Is there no imperative to actually provide sterilizing immunity at "warp speed", because society can just shove non-sterilizing vaccines into people and save on ICU beds?

[1] -- https://www.cell.com/iscience/fulltext/S2589-0042(21)01005-1

I too desperately want a sterilizing vaccine. Given the existence of influenza and the common cold (a bunch of rhino and corona viruses), this seems unlikely unfortunately.

If it seems unlikely, then someone should explain why it works in a mouse model but not in the real world. If the virus mutates too quickly for a full sterilizing vaccine, then nonetheless, any vaccine that reduces transmission is helpful. If the virus mutates too quickly period, all the more reason for variant-specific boosters, targeted to the strains circulating, just like the yearly flu shot.

> someone should explain why it works in a mouse model but not in the real world.

As the saying goes, 'mice lie and monkeys exaggerate'.

The current vaccines do, in fact, reduce transmission. This efficacy drops over time, but it definitely exists.