First question – do you accept that there is a pandemic. If you don’t – then, it is indeed easy: you don’t think that there is a threat, there is no need for any intervention, etc. There is no need to ivermectin either. This is, of course, refuted by statistics and personal experience of many people.
Now, if there is a pandemic, there are many independent ways to deal with this – SD, masks, washing surfaces, washing hands, ventilation, (later) vaccines, vitamins, medicines. They were not just invented, these are standard public policies for pandemics. After some experience, some were judged less important (surfaces), the rest are multiple layers of defense. some are more expensive or inconvenient or risky, so I understand why someone will be against masks (convenience) or against SD (love of people), or washing hands (laziness), or vaccines (risk). You seem to say that they are all suspect because they are proposed by “corrupt government”, except the ones that are proposed by a group of “non-corrupt” scientists. This is strange, given that these are standard policies not developed specifically for COVID and accepted during initial emergency by multiple independent-thinking countries and bodies.