This has always been a red herring for you and the establishment experts. It's a cost/benefit analysis. Where we disagree is the amount of the benefit (very few people have said vaccines are completely useless, there is no transmission where people gather, masks even N95s have zero protective value, and lockdowns don't save even 1 life). Your position is we disagree on the amount of the benefit, therefore we cannot have a discussion of the costs, and therefore we cannot come to a conclusion as to the policy. It's a convenient way to avoid debating your preferred policy subscriptions and submitting them to scrutiny. It's a convenient way for you to not think about the costs (whether kids in school, drug overdoses, the streets filled with discarded masks and the environmental damage, or the mental damage your interventions do to people). You get to think only about the hypothetical people you saved and none of the destruction left in its wake.