The problem is that you're basically countering what is well-established fact over the history of our nation. The SC has been faced with First Amendment cases before and made it pretty clear there are limitations (rights are conditional).

It seems very likely that the Supreme Court would side with "governments can restrict the movement of people during health emergencies especially if there is reasonable science supporting that". I guess we don't know unless they take up such a case.

My statements are purely practical; I've never "fought for my rights" or "lived in a place lacking them", but my ancestors did, and in ever sense, the conditions of my rights seem to be as unrestricted as is possible within a large nation that follows the rule of law.