I'm not trying to change your mind, but I am prepared to voice my own.
As you should, and you make a lot of good points that need to be heard. My objection is not to the content of your arguments at all, which i don't wholly disagree with. It is to the idea that the reason people might not agree is because of pride and ego, which implicitly discredits their pov and elevates one's own. Even if you weren't doing that, it's how it came across and it doesn't add anything to your argument.
A central problem as I see it is that we are run by an oligarchy whose sock-puppet governments don't give a shit about us. The neoliberal capitalist societies they've imposed on us, the global precariat, have left us living with a lack of community, little social safety net, physical and mental health challenges, decrepit public infrastructure, people barely scraping by with a hundred stresses in their daily lives. In a health emergency, even if the measures implemented are considered the best ones from a public health perspective, based in sound science, they probably don't and maybe aren't able to take into account the already catastrophic social conditions they're being imposed on top of, which creates the kind of serious jeopardy you mention. A democratic government would implement simultaneous measures to mitigate those costs, but we don't have democratic governments. The ones we do have are flailing between the science, facts on the ground, the demands of elites, and fear that their whole edifice is teetering. So they're inevitably going to make a hash of it.
But social distancing and lockdowns are not unique to the west, or even to capitalist societies, indications that those measures in themselves are not driven by a conspiracy or ideology. Whether they are being exploited for nefarious ends and implemented badly and contradictorily are separate issues i think.