Not to belabor the point but I've shot for decades without a hood but with good quality lenses. Here is what Ken Rockwell has to say about hoods:

"I've never unwrapped mine. Hoods are an obsolete throwback to simpler times.

Flare: There is no problem with flare. Modern lenses have this fixed. If the sun is shining directly on my lens I'll use my hand to shield it. This works better than any hood, and is easier than hauling around the hood. I prefer this over hauling around and attaching a big hood every time I shoot.

For infra-red the hood will help, since lenses aren't free from IR flare.

Water Spray: In the old days we used hoods to protect against rain and sea spray. They work for that.

Physical Damage Hazard: The hood can make it more likely you'll damage your lens. In the old days of manual metal lenses, we worried about marring the paint on the front of the lens barrel. A filter or hood would prevent that. Today the most delicate part of the 18-200mm is the zoom assembly. The front of the lens is only very delicately attached to the rest of the lens. Knock the front of the lens too hard and you can destroy the whole thing. You could crack a zoom cam or pinion which then knocks the lens out of alignment and requires expensive repairs. Having a big hood sticking out only makes it more likely you could knock and damage your zoom."

I agree with your original point, and also the one above. What I don't understand is why these points lead to so much discussion. Part of it is personal preference and behavioral choices. Part is attitudes about equipment protection, part of it is about image quality. The issues don't seem that complicated, so why does it take so much discussion?

We all seem to be intelligent enough to use cameras, read and post to UHH on the internet, which all seem to be more complicated than making the choices being discussed. What am I missing?