You've missed the point @iron, but thank you for pointing out that 2005-era tablets didn't have the same shortcomings as the VR goggles of 2022 do.
2005-era tablets had their own shortcomings, which, when improved in the subsequent years, changed the balance of utility versus faff to a point where many more people bought and used them.
The current shortcomings of VR you list aren't necessarily inherent to the concept. I don't feel sick looking at the real world, suggesting there is a level of visial fidelity / refresh / focus that doesn't make me sick... It's not immediately obvious to me that technology can't advance closer to this ideal, perhaps past a threshold that is comfortable for most people.
VR can stop you interacting with people around you, true. But so do books, quiet rooms, earphones, sunglasses, hooded sweatshirts, and long walks... It can be a feature, not a bug.
But then AR might actually aid interactions with people, as a whiteboard or a boardgame does.
As for Zuck? I didn't mention Meta or Occulus, (nor would I buy their products, of course) because I was talking about the future in general when other VR / AR systems will be available. If I was a betting man, I'd put money on Apple's MKII or III AR product succeeding over Meta's. Apple have the chips, the vertical integration, a better reputation for privacy, a better reputation for knowing which consumers have spare cash, etc etc. (Their MK I device is widely rumoured to be very expensive and aimed studios developing AR content - not a mass market product. )
[Upon re-reading my previous comment I see I led with VR and ended with AR, which may have confused. My apologies. ]