Brooks, that could be the case of course. No one is free of ego. But the facts that this time last year none of us would have stood for any such attack of human rights (and it is, though within the remit of clauses to the convention which is the lawyer part of the convention of course), and now many of us are happy to let it slide, coupled with the fact that everyone has tacitly acknowledged the lock down is totally half arsed or arse about face (sending the same old people were meant to be protecting infected to old people homes for example), and I can't see a logical reason for the continued defense of a lockdown that prohibits personal freedom but forces workers back to work, car pooling, public transport etc, unless we include the very real and acknowledged effects that sustained social media shouting and lack of human interaction to moderate and develop our thought processes have on polarising views via ego amplification. I don't think my conclysions are unreasonable but can only really be 100% certain of the facts, which are that we have somehow found ourselves in a position where associating with others is seditious. Put that concept into any other framework than the one we currently believe is righteous and we would be condemning such a move completely. Add to it what appears to be gross negligence of the safety and health of the most vulnerable and the arguments in favour can't really be seen as airtight by any stretch of imagination.
I'm not trying to change your mind, but I am prepared to voice my own.