How many of those successful products are actually being made in a free market, and didn't rely on government intervention somewhere along the way? Subsidies, grants, safety standards, etc

Similarly, plenty of government run services are great and cheap -- they start failing when free market evangelists start sabotaging them to feed these kinds of arguments

The free market theory, if we want to call it that, has always also carried the implicit 'in the long run' and this is what we're quibbling about. Natural disasters, pandemics etc are short term conditions that don't allow enough time for the normal market mechanics to come into play. This is the argument essentially.

Your belief in the markets is such that you cannot even allow for any instance where the free market is an imperfect solution and any kind of critique means that the person is anti market. I am not anti market. I simply do not consider the free markets some infallible system that works in every context.

This is not some rhetorical device meant to sneak in Socialism. It is in fact possible to recognize the efficacy of the markets, over the long run, but still recognize that there are contexts that require some amount of intervention.

I want to also comment on the following: "even if you don't believe in it"

I don't consider this something to believe in or not believe in. It's just a system, a tool, it has strengths and it has weaknesses. Sometimes it's the right approach, sometimes it's not.