You're almost immediately destroying your own arguments - all of them - in just one phrase:
"can generally be caught by an experienced programmer anyways"
So your implication there is that if bugs get through that Typescript would have (trivially) stopped, it's because the programmer isn't experienced enough? It's not the code, it's the developer?
In that case, after 25 years of writing code, I'm not experienced enough by your definition.
Maybe you're too good a programmer to need static typing. Maybe you don't need unit tests, either. Maybe you don't need automated tests. And if you do, perhaps you should take your own advice and "learn to write better code".
But as for myself, I'll take all the help I can get - I might not be experienced by whatever definition you use, and I'll readily agree I can always learn to write better code, but what my experience does tell me is that static typing is useful both to me as a programmer, and also my IDEs and other tooling, which in turn make up for my weaknesses and let me concentrate on providing actual value to actual users.
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
We strive for transparency and don't collect excess data.