[Goose]

If Atlas had said that he'd be (1) wrong because we can control how many people get the virus as has been shown by many other countries,

Unfortunately what happens in other countries doesn't demonstrate that WE can get the virus under control. For one thing, we have Trump and Atlas :). We also have lots of people who just don't care about social distancing, masking, etc, and no political will (in general) to enforce such regulations. I know that that isn't what you mean here. Other countries have shown that it is possible to control the spread of the disease if certain behaviors are followed. Whether the USA can make those behaviors happen is still TBD. So far, not so good.

(2) simplistic because the "shutdown vs open-up" argument dismisses myriad responses in between, and (3) still unqualified to be a task force member.

Couldn't agree more. This false dichotomy has been literally killing us since the beginning of the epidemic.

Because he's wrong many more people will get sick, die or develop long-lasting issues, and our economy will be hurt much more than a correct response.

I am not sure Atlas makes any difference at all. He is wrong for sure, but he doesn't make the decisions. He does give Trump some (very limited) cover for the decisions Trump is making. I assume based on your previous statements that by a "correct" response you mean one that at least recognizes the problems created by unchecked spread of the virus. Unfortunately, there are many possible "correct" responses. Sweden has an approach many say is not "correct". I think "correct" is a strong yet somewhat ambiguous word to describe the desired situation, although I can't think of a better one ATM.

Controlling the virus is the answer to helping our economy and getting back to normal life.  You don't just say we're going back to normal.  It smacks of the same fantastical thinking that Trump constantly espouses because he wants everyone to think the US is in great shape.  Just because you want it to be so don't make it so.

It apparently does for Trump. Actually, the phenomenon is more common than one thinks Chamberlain thought he could do business with Hitler.  Granted, not quite apples and apples, but politicians almost never abandon a position even when it has been shown to be obviously wrong. Trump however appears to carry self-delusion to levels not seen in American politics before.

Follow the science.

I see this phrase used a lot, and I must admit it bothers me. There is an implication that science holds "the answer" to exactly what we need to do. Science provides an equation that is known to be 100% accurate, and all we need to do is enter the parameters and out pops a "perfect" answer. In fact, science can tell us a few things about the epidemic, but there are many more things it can't tell us yet (because they are still being determined) and there are many things regarding public policy that it can never tell us. Science isn't going to tell us to open nail salons but not Gyms. There are models that exist that can be useful, but the models really aren't "validated" yet because this is a new virus. The error bars in many areas are large. What "science" told us about asymptomatic spread four months ago is now almost assuredly wrong.
Science knows it's own limitations. Those people trying to follow the science often do not recognize or understand those limitations. In situations like this epidemic, science can be used to make predictions about the probable results of certain policies. In some cases, these predictions are pretty certain. In many more cases, the predictions depend on 1) factors about viral spread that we don't yet know and 2) human behavior in ways that science can't model well. YMMV.

[Goose]

If Atlas had said that he'd be (1) wrong because we can control how many people get the virus as has been shown by many other countries,

Unfortunately what happens in other countries doesn't demonstrate that WE can get the virus under control. For one thing, we have Trump and Atlas :). We also have lots of people who just don't care about social distancing, masking, etc, and no political will (in general) to enforce such regulations. I know that that isn't what you mean here. Other countries have shown that it is possible to control the spread of the disease if certain behaviors are followed. Whether the USA can make those behaviors happen is still TBD. So far, not so good.

(2) simplistic because the "shutdown vs open-up" argument dismisses myriad responses in between, and (3) still unqualified to be a task force member.

Couldn't agree more. This false dichotomy has been literally killing us since the beginning of the epidemic.

Because he's wrong many more people will get sick, die or develop long-lasting issues, and our economy will be hurt much more than a correct response.

I am not sure Atlas makes any difference at all. He is wrong for sure, but he doesn't make the decisions. He does give Trump some (very limited) cover for the decisions Trump is making. I assume based on your previous statements that by a "correct" response you mean one that at least recognizes the problems created by unchecked spread of the virus. Unfortunately, there are many possible "correct" responses. Sweden has an approach many say is not "correct". I think "correct" is a strong yet somewhat ambiguous word to describe the desired situation, although I can't think of a better one ATM.

Controlling the virus is the answer to helping our economy and getting back to normal life.  You don't just say we're going back to normal.  It smacks of the same fantastical thinking that Trump constantly espouses because he wants everyone to think the US is in great shape.  Just because you want it to be so don't make it so.

It apparently does for Trump. Actually, the phenomenon is more common than one thinks Chamberlain thought he could do business with Hitler.  Granted, not quite apples and apples, but politicians almost never abandon a position even when it has been shown to be obviously wrong. Trump however appears to carry self-delusion to levels not seen in American politics before.

Follow the science.

I see this phrase used a lot, and I must admit it bothers me. There is an implication that science holds "the answer" to exactly what we need to do. Science provides an equation that is known to be 100% accurate, and all we need to do is enter the parameters and out pops a "perfect" answer. In fact, science can tell us a few things about the epidemic, but there are many more things it can't tell us yet (because they are still being determined) and there are many things regarding public policy that it can never tell us. Science isn't going to tell us to open nail salons but not Gyms. There are models that exist that can be useful, but the models really aren't "validated" yet because this is a new virus. The error bars in many areas are large. What "science" told us about asymptomatic spread four months ago is now almost assuredly wrong.
Science knows it's own limitations. Those people trying to follow the science often do not recognize or understand those limitations. In situations like this epidemic, science can be used to make predictions about the probable results of certain policies. In some cases, these predictions are pretty certain. In many more cases, the predictions depend on 1) factors about viral spread that we don't yet know and 2) human behavior in ways that science can't model well. YMMV.