This isn't some guessing game where the consequence of being wrong is equal, whether you're wrong above or below the line.
If we're too cautious, zero additional deaths will occur and it would have wasted some money.
If we're wrong the other way, it would cause unknown numbers of deaths and would cost more money in the long run.
.
So in this situation of the great unknown, it's an easy choice of which way to be wrong on - we must be cautious. It's not even a choice. No, the masses aren't responding well, but it's due to so much being unknown (ie - lack of testing) and not because they're overly cautious. The masses are stupid and animalistic and prone to such behavior - it's predictable.
Prudent cautiousness is what the situation calls for. And no matter what anyone's opinion of Trump is, we can all agree he doesn't possess the capacity to influence anyone with cautiousness, nor prudence.
This is where you are wrong. Over Cautiousness will cost people jobs, livelihood, money, retirement funds. Being overly cautious will cause the economy to go into a temporary recess that is not a matter of how sound the economy is. Tell the people whose living depends on the income from working sporting events, etc. that being overly cautiousness doesn't hurt.
And I agree Prudent cautiousness is what the situation calls for, however shutting down all these events, etc. is not "prudent" in my opinion.
I know it is not one to one equivalent but with the H1N1 60M in the USA got it. 212K were hospitalized, 12K died. Covid-19 is nowhere near these numbers in the US. Where was the massive shutdowns then? Like all of these things in my lifetime, the virus runs it course, people take prudent precautions. People get sick, some die, but society continues without a gigantic disruption to society.
Sorry, but I am amazed how you seem to know what is good for the "masses" You are superior in your judgement then the Stupid and animalistic hoi polloi. Hate to say but typical elitism, we know what is good for you better than you know yourself.