all you say is true but that isn’t a false dichotomy defense. it’s “just” a refutation of his position. to contest a false dichotomy you need to explain that there is a third choice.

i find the fear vs freedom dichotomy to be a legitimate set of choices. you didn’t argue against fear, you argued against individual freedom vs societal freedom. which is not what the gp was going on about.

IMO the tradeoff is freedoms vs. protections. People can agree to exchange certain freedoms for protections, and codify this exchange into law.

For example many countries have mandated seatbelt laws. In this case the freedom to not wear a seatbelt is exchanged for health and safety. Someone could claim this is done out of fear, and that's not completely untrue. And as you allude, fear can be totally rational and backed by data, thus fear vs. freedom is not an unreasonable exchange.