Same. To some extent the presence of certs is a lacks-clue indicator to me. That's not fatal (lots of great hires really understand security but know nothing about the industry) but it starts my evaluation of you off at 'greenhorn'.
You are probably looking for advanced people (or you might just be a shitty recruiter...). As a second data point I can tell that having OSCP can help you significantly in the beginning of your career (and for a reason, most entry-level certs are just complete bs and it's nice to have something to show off when you are lacking actual experience).
Second this point. One hire that I had a voice in getting hired showed up with no current job, no security experience, but had written a compiler at home, just for fun. Has what most folks would consider a spectacular career since then.
What are you looking for in that case? I mean, in the absence of previous experience doing the same thing.
The way I look at it, people come into technical security either from operations or development backgrounds, but it's hard to distinguish someone who has the required skills from their years in dev or ops from those who have managed to do their core work so without going into the relevant details; their CVs are going to look pretty much the same.
A hobbyist might have practiced on some CTFs or vulnerable machine challenges, but unless they haven't e.g. won some bug bounties or gotten some CVE disclosures, then that won't be really visible on a job application. If certifications aren't considered relevant by security hiring managers, what is?
Why would those things count more or less than other things? It seems more like a list of things you think are neat but trying to guess what a resume-reader might think is neat seems like a game with very poor returns.
Ah that makes sense but then those things would be useful when applying for your specific job rather than things that would be useful when looking to make a specialization switch and are wondering whether certifications are useful.