[Genuine Realist]

I think the NRO makes a very good point.  Had lockdown orders been handed down earlier, a lot of people would have considered them vast overreactions given what was occurring.  Humans do have trouble understanding exponential growth.  And it took some time to hit a lot of people.  I think basically it wasn't until the NBA cut its season short that a lot of people started taking the virus seriously.

However, this is where leadership comes in.  Someone willing to take what might look like an unpopular stance could have gotten people to take the virus seriously earlier.  Maybe even instituting a mandatory lockdown while it still looks like an overreaction would have resulted in a lot of grumbles, and some defiance, but most people would have actually followed the advice.  If you wait until the people are "ready" and voluntarily social distancing, then the actual lockdown orders are going to make much less of a difference than if they are instituted before people are ready.

Now, this was not an administration failure, per se, as instituting shelter in place orders are the responsibility of state and local leaders.  Some leaders did well here and some did poorly (I'm looking at you, Bill de Blasio).  But it would have been a lot easier to issue controversial orders if it could have been done in a coordinated fashion with the same message being repeated at local, state, and federal levels.  Federal guidelines for how and when to close could have given local officials cover to issue shelter in place orders that the public might have been less ready for.  And if the threat was high enough to impose a shutdown on travel from China, it should have been apparent that once there was community transmission, putting in a travel ban is akin to closing the barn door after the horses have left.

BC

Not a 'lot of people', just about everybody, including probably the majority of health professionals. (I have mentioned my ultra cautious PCP, at the physical she dragged me to on 2/29, was dismissive - 'just wash your hands'.) Not just Trump, but most Democratic politicians were in the same camp. Op-eds in the NYT and Post emphasized the dangers of xenophobia and were dismissive of the virus - this well into February.

There was no political consensus for these drastic measures until the second week of March. I believe it was the clinical experience in Italy and the cluster sites in the US that changed opinions radically and quickly.

[Genuine Realist]

I think the NRO makes a very good point.  Had lockdown orders been handed down earlier, a lot of people would have considered them vast overreactions given what was occurring.  Humans do have trouble understanding exponential growth.  And it took some time to hit a lot of people.  I think basically it wasn't until the NBA cut its season short that a lot of people started taking the virus seriously.

However, this is where leadership comes in.  Someone willing to take what might look like an unpopular stance could have gotten people to take the virus seriously earlier.  Maybe even instituting a mandatory lockdown while it still looks like an overreaction would have resulted in a lot of grumbles, and some defiance, but most people would have actually followed the advice.  If you wait until the people are "ready" and voluntarily social distancing, then the actual lockdown orders are going to make much less of a difference than if they are instituted before people are ready.

Now, this was not an administration failure, per se, as instituting shelter in place orders are the responsibility of state and local leaders.  Some leaders did well here and some did poorly (I'm looking at you, Bill de Blasio).  But it would have been a lot easier to issue controversial orders if it could have been done in a coordinated fashion with the same message being repeated at local, state, and federal levels.  Federal guidelines for how and when to close could have given local officials cover to issue shelter in place orders that the public might have been less ready for.  And if the threat was high enough to impose a shutdown on travel from China, it should have been apparent that once there was community transmission, putting in a travel ban is akin to closing the barn door after the horses have left.

BC

Not a 'lot of people', just about everybody, including probably the majority of health professionals. (I have mentioned my ultra cautious PCP, at the physical she dragged me to on 2/29, was dismissive - 'just wash your hands'.) Not just Trump, but most Democratic politicians were in the same camp. Op-eds in the NYT and Post emphasized the dangers of xenophobia and were dismissive of the virus - this well into February.

There was no political consensus for these drastic measures until the second week of March. I believe it was the clinical experience in Italy and the cluster sites in the US that changed opinions radically and quickly.