Nope. I'm describing a reality in which Silicon Valley Bank et al shareholders have all been wiped out. Same with Lehman Brothers et al last time round. Their bad loans and securitised loan purchases were very much not in the interests of their shareholders, who very much did bear the downside risk of them. Other bailout recipients repaid their emergency loans (just like profit making companies in every other sector borrowing from a hypothetical State Bank would be expected to in an alternative arrangement where the state decides to handle the consumer side and lend to everyone except money lenders)

Certainly the line of reasoning that the bailouts could be skipped altogether in an idealised system is very persuasive as a propaganda line for people proposing terrible policies like "what if it was impossible for people or businesses to borrow money without the approval of the state board for borrowing money" (or "what if ordinary depositors were subject to the same risks as capitalist investors") and arguments like the OP's which conflate the concept of maturity mismatch and insolvency are very persuasive to people that don't know the difference. But personally, I prefer to analyse how things work rather than compare their respective propaganda values