This thread is a classic example of internet arguments where both (several?) sides are dug in, advocating their beliefs, in the hope that they will sway the other side...which rarely happens.
It's also a case where I hope those who claim we are overreacting are right. When all is said and done, if its a minimal event, they will be "right". But maybe they will be "right" because of the steps that were taken. Either way, I hope it becomes a non-event. Kind of like Y2K, which I was intimately involved in. It was a non-event. But only because many, many people prepared for a long time to make sure it wasn't.
Should you have any doubt that we need to do something, read here.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...-scenario.html
Use the slider to show how things could change if the infection rate is 30% and fatality rate is 1%. It's eye opening. Theoretical? Yes.
But I hope all the models are wrong, all the steps are "wrong", and we have another "non-event"