[giantg2]

"A more severe virus would play out very differently."

It wouldn't necessarily. It could still be nearly impossible to contain given the right characteristics, like asymptomatic carriers, a latency period, or benign early onset symptoms. With the right parameters and fast global travel, it would be global before any measures could even be implemented (theory is this was the case with Covid).

"I don't think we'd see such a huge conspiracy movement around it and much greater compliance from the population."

There might be better compliance, but not likely enough to make a difference. Many of the things that they're supposed to be complying with were misunderstood, ineffective (maybe marginally effective), and wouldn't prevent transmission. Even if you were to lock almost everyone in their homes, you still have some essential personnel who must travel/work/etc. Most lack the training necessary for consistently complying with prevention protocols.

Just look at the number of people dying of drugs every year. They know it's bad. Some think it won't happen to them. Others don't care. There's no reason to believe that a non-zero portion of the population would share these two thought processes in this sort of situation and still cause significant damage. Including the people who see no/limited risk for themselves.