Presently, no one can post certain peer-reviewed science from well-known and respected medical journals on any social media account, or speak of them on YT, because of widespread censorship of certain topics.
It's not possible to have anything remotely resembling a "debate" in such a climate.
Mandates have not been effective. Nothing that's been done can be said to have been "effective". We are apparently in an even worse place now, even with vaccines, than we were last year.
In reality though, we aren't.
The pathology of the virus is well-understood, as are the mechanisms to defeat it. But we're not allowed to talk about it.
It'd all be over in weeks if we were - as we saw in India recently, in all provinces but the one that stuck with the dogma.
Your second claim is massively untrue: all of the information is public and actual medical doctors overwhelmingly support vaccination and bend over backwards trying to help patients understand it (note that most of the high profile objectors either aren't real MDs and/or are speaking far outside of their area of expertise). The problem is that many people are defining “open dialogue” as meaning that untrue statements they make need to be taken as seriously as the consensus of the scientific community.
The first is rather debatable: mandates have been highly effective everywhere they've been tried because they shift the cost calculation to “do I feel strongly enough about this that I'm willing to give up something I like?”.