If Python were statically typed:

- Most Python expressions and standard library functions would have (nontrivial) types

- It would be unusual for a Python library to come without (nontrivial) types

- It would be unusual for Python code containing type errors to be distributed

- Many classes of runtime errors (e.g. no such method) would be unusual in Python code that does not contain type errors

What is a static or strong type system is sort of up for debate, the terms are not well defined. Not OP, but IMO type annotations are static but not strong. I'd consider a strong type system one that enables you to encode additional invariants in the types, with sum and product types being perhaps the minimal requirement.

This argument isn't convincing. These artifacts are hints that can be ignored, not constraints to the python interpreter. It seems to me a bit like arguing that the existence of Coverity (and other static analysis tools) means C is as safe as Rust.