No tool is perfect. What matters is if a tool is useful. I've found TypeScript to be incredibly useful. Is it possible to construct code that leads to runtime type errors? Yes. Does it go a long way towards reducing runtime type errors? Also yes.
Some tools are more perfect and more useful than others.
Typescript's type system is very powerful, but without strict compile-time enforcement you still spend a lot of effort on validating runtime weirdness (that the compiler ought to be able to enforce).
You don't have to rewrite your whole codebase to start using it. It grows horizontally (you add typed files along the way) compared to typescript which grows vertically (you enable it with Any types).
The point is that we don't have to move back to plain js. We have learned a lot since typescript was created and I think the time has come to slowly move to a better language (and ReScript feels the most like Javascript in that regard).
That's something that you own and control, though. Just because TypeScript allows developers to gently onboard static type checking by disabling or watering down checks, that does not mean TypeScipt is the reason you spend time validating your own bugs.
Unfortunately, taking an ecosystem-wide view, it means exactly that. If one of my dependencies hasn't provided type stubs, or has provided stubs, but then violated their own type signatures in some way, I'm on the hook for the outputs not matching the type annotations.
In a strict language, The compiler would assert that the dependency's declared types matched their code, and I'd only be on the hook for type violations in my own code.