My take via example - I recently picked up a Nikon AF-P 70-300 VR F4.5-6.3 to try out since I heard good things about the AF-P series. It was going to be compared to my Nik 70-300 AF lens (sharp lens, no VR). Used the AF-P lens for a day (in bright Florida sun) and found that while the VR worked, in bright conditions the older AF lens is sharper, and the AF is fast enough for most work. I was going to send the AF-P back, even had an RMA for it.

Next day was cloudy and just generally a dull grey yucky day. Thought, well maybe I should give it a go in low light before I send it back. Glad I did, while not as tack sharp as the older AF lens, it could quickly focus and stabilize at very slow to fairly high shutter speeds, and produce a good crisp image, even one handed off balance shots came out well, something that probably would not happen with the non-VR lens. I shot till near dusk, and got shots the older Nikon lens would have severely struggled to get. So now I have 2 70-300 lens. The old AF lens is sharper, but has low light limitations for AF. It is fine for manual focus, but I'm not always doing manual focus.

I do agree that at faster shutter speeds it becomes less and less important, till you reach a point/speed where there is no gain.

If I were to do anything different, it would be to go for the (higher $$$) Nik AF-P VR F4.5-5.6. But I can't complain, the F4.5-6.3 was only $120 delivered from MPB and while called used, looks brand new, box, paperwork and all.

My lenses are split about evenly between non-stabilized and stabilized for my Nikon bodies, My Sony bodies all have IBIS, so those lenses are non-stabilized A-mounts. Is VR/IS/OS/IBIS etc. worthwhile, yes, there are circumstances where it is very helpful. Do you need it if you mainly shoot tripod (or other stabilizing methods), or manual focus, maybe not. But if you are on the move, have steadiness issues, shooting in low light w/o assist, shooting off-balance one handed, etc. It is worth having. My humble opinion, YMMV.