Re: Scary, are we blind to this?
"objective truth based on solid evidence" is quite a lofty goal and I don't think we'd have seen a single restriction for at least the first year of C-19 if it had been the criteria for policy. I also disagree that there's much risk to the general public from the wacky beliefs about microchips, ect. you mentioned because, for the same reason you chose them, they're so laughably outlandish that the average person doesn't believe them.
I believe the dangerous censorship we saw during Covid was firmly in the grey area of science where both censored ideas and policy were developed. That's not to say every policy was automatically invalid or that every censored idea was automatically valid (or vice versa) but I believe the overstatement of certainty by governments (made drastically worse by media looking for a headline), as you're engaging in, led to the more damaging public hesitancy, which no amount of censorship would resolve.
This is a view shared by the Royal Society:
https://royalsociety.org/news/2022/01/scientific-misinformation-report/
I would go so far as to say that a Ministry of Truth which shared your simplifications would be far more deadly to the wellbeing of the population than a million loonies waxing lyrical about microchips.