Honest question / food for thought:

If, in a similar historical pandemic (1957 or 1968) we had initially taken the same lockdown / restricted activity approach, do you think it would have taken less time, more time, or about the same amount of time to correct course?

Arguments for "more time":
- Information was not readily available (e.g. to know what the responses of other nations were & how their data compares)
- Traditional media held near-monopoly on info
- Other?

Arguments for "less time":
- Traditional media more homogenous and less rigorous / skeptical now than ever
- Public sentiment was not so inextricably tied to media reports
- Politicization would have been beyond the pale
- No alternatives to in-person school, etc.
- Other?

To expand on that last point: Not only would alternatives not exist for in-person schooling, but also for vast segments of the (white collar) workforce.

This may be the biggest driving force: We're imposing these extended restrictions because certain classes can bear them.

This underscores the disconnect between the professional and connected "haves" and the oft-forgotten and unrepresented "have-nots." To be "essential" is to be expendable in a worldview in which such dramatic restrictions are warranted in the first place.