Seems we can agree that it was incompetent to prevent healthy people from seroconverting last summer.

With even healthy people dying or having long term if not life long health impacts, was it really "incompetent" to prevent people from taking those risks?

Your sentence makes very little sense to me because the seroconversion has a high chance of causing life-altering side effects. I'd say it would be irresponsible to suggest that to the general public.

There's a counterfactual logic flaw there though. How do you know ahead of time that a healthy person would recover nicely? There are plenty of counterexamples. If you respond in a utilitarian manner, well then you have to compare it with other utilitarian approaches.