And why settle for making them afraid when you can pit one against another and create a society that would make the Stasi proud. Perish the thought someone else should dare to provide for themselves instead of relying on Nanny State. Never mind the fact the unemployment systems are swamped and people have gone weeks with no money at all, let's get a portal ready so people can snitch on each other.
Fear mongering is the favorite weapon of the politicians. But, present threat is real and clear. Politicians have nothing to gain by spreading fear about current pandemic. I don;t deny they have used White/Black/Hispanic, Christian/Muslim/Jew divides to garner votes. But, Looking present situation through political/conspiracy lens will do nothing but harm. I relate with the @RabbiKnife 's concern about quarantine the healthy for the sake of sick. But, I guess no body has a Idea better than social distancing & precautions. We know people are social animals and need social contact, But foregoing that for a while is going to harm nobody. If there are no people left to hug, talk then there is no sense. Just let this tide over. Let's listen to Health Experts, Doctors and follow. Let's put aside anything else than survival. Freedom, Socializing, Economy and all only matter to living people. They are no use to dead ones.
The thing is that those who want to unseat Trump in this country do have a clear benefit in spreading fear. If you start with the concept that "it's the economy, stupid" it's easy to see why crashing the economy achieves political aims, namely making the guy whose boast was about the economy look really bad right before an election. It's important to look at things through a variety of lenses. Our (Democrat) governor allowed an urban Democrat-leaning county to open, while at the same time requiring a rural Republican-leaning with fewer cases per capita and fewer deaths per capita (a total of 0 deaths, as it happens) to stay locked down. I wonder why that might have been. The alternative to doing something is not doing it. Many people present false dichotomies as if a bad idea must be followed because "you can't suggest anything better". So how about this - forget social distancing and let adults make their own choices. You know, this whole "land of the free and the home of the brave" that switched almost overnight into "land of the scared and the home of the slave". Rural areas naturally have larger distance between people - only the other day I bumped into a friend while out walking and we stopped and chatted for a while. I noticed that the natural distance we maintained was about six feet. Close enough to talk but we don't need to be getting in each others' faces. Yet for some reason the fuhrer thinks people can't be trusted to not get in each others' faces. Sadly this simply isn't true. Foregoing social contact for a short time may not have any long term consequences but foregoing it for an extended period is hugely bad. A friend of mine works in a nursing home where the residents aren't even allowed to interact with other. You know, for their own good. Except the loneliness is causing a rise in depression - these people are already somewhat isolated and a number of them don't even want to go on living at all now. Throw in the very well known factors of rising unemployment causing an increase in suicides, alcohol and substance misuse, depression, heart attacks etc and it soon becomes clear that this isn't a simple matter of choosing money or lives. It's about choosing one course of action that will cost lives against another that will cost lives. For good measure during the lockdown domestic violence has increased and a generation of children have had their education disrupted. Some children have been placed at heightened risk of molestation and other abuse. But, you know, it's just a short term inconvenience, right? They are no use to people who face long-term unemployment because local businesses shut down, nor to people who were forced to close their doors and end up struggling to rehire people, nor to people killed by violent partners during the lockdown, people who couldn't get to their support groups and so relapsed into alcohol or drug abuse, and so on. Ultimately the choice is simple. If you're afraid to go out you are free to hide under the bed for as long as you choose. The problem is when you decide that the only option other people should have is to hide under their beds until you feel safe.
As I said little minded politicians are busy playing politics here. Identify them and remember! We all know costs of lockdown. Nobody wants it forever. But effective lockkown for short term to curtail propagation, end virus cycle and to buy time to develop treatment is necessary. Also as I said in another post, recognize and acknowledge danger. Practice safety. More cautious and vigilant people are, Less need for the government to intervene. I see people failing to do that, so does government and it needs to act accordingly.
Effective lockdown for short term? How long is short term? How long can people go without any income at all? A substantial proportion of Americans can't find the money to cover an unexpected $400 bill yet these people are expected to go weeks or months with no income at all. If this was a short-term thing people wouldn't be so unhappy. When "short term" means two months, three months, four months, maybe more if the governor feels like extending it, you don't get to say people are selfish for becoming increasingly hostile to it. When a county has less than 50 total cases and zero deaths it's not silly to ask questions about why things are still locked down. When the fuhrer has created an arbitrary system of reopening and hasn't even decided what criteria might be required to move to the next level it's not a conspiracy theory to wonder if he's making it up as he goes along.