Realise that we solidly failed to do this with all our masks and measures.
I’m not at all convinced that by those who argue it was not possible to apply focused protection. We spent so much on unfocused protection. What if we took those resources — or even just a fraction of them — and redirected them to those at most need.
Masks and social distancing absolutely had an effect on the situation, and the main reason we had to do unfocused solutions as you call them is because people infected with Covid did not always have symptoms, and it was extremely contagious. If algae is exponentially covering a pond, it covers half the pond the day before it covers the whole pond. The exponential nature of infection is really hard to reason about and I think people like you really aren't understanding that at the time, with no vaccines, the only way to protect the most vulnerable was to reduce community spread. You also don't have a magic eight ball telling you who might get hospitalized. We had really fit people dying in two weeks. There was no way to tell who was and wasn't vulnerable.
also, skipping over the most egregious thing of all: censoring anyone who suggested lab-leak.
"not supported by science" -- i.e. the Establishment didn't like them.
Instead of looking at the fake names, how about we look at the non-fake ones?
Like Jay Bhattacharya, Sunetra Gupta, and Martin Kulldorff. Are they nutcases, too?
And your fake name issue actually IS addressed in here:
https://gbdeclaration.org/why-was-the-declaration-written/