But you didn't do that this time. You said, and I quote, "It was a bizarre, unprecedented public health experiment."

Unless otherwise stated, the first aspect of public health that you have to worry about is death. Hence, my response about the vaccine saving hundreds of thousands of lives.

So, you asked about health and I responded exactly on topic with the most important consideration first. This has nothing to do with your supposed narratives. You asked. Maybe you didn't realize what you were asking, or you don't think death is an extremely important public health issue?

Now you're at least implying that you think that restrictions are bad for mental health. If you just go out and measure anxiety and depression, you don't see dramatically different things in places with a pattern of robust lockdowns and other measures, and places without. (See for instance https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7040e3.htm, though you have to know something about state policies also for it to be meaningful.) That, of course, is not the whole story, though if there was an immense difference because of restrictions, you'd see it in that data. So, what about the rest of the story? Do you actually know anything about this, or are you just repeating it because it sounded like a good way to win an argument? I know something about it.