[Goose]

Fundamentally, this is where I've been on Trump criticism.  I have my doubts about the legality/advisability of a national lockdown imposed from D.C.  But the messaging on (i) the gravity of virus, (ii) the expectation that Shelter-in-Place orders would be imposed by States as deemed advisable, (iii) the need to be smart/responsible in your daily activities (including on mask-wearing), (iv) the need to be diligent on the front-end [until given areas become comfortable that hospital capacity is not endangered (obviously, my add)], and (iv) the assurance that Feds would help states with $$ to help containment and tracking - and to help with those displaced from work - would have done wonders on national psyche and lowered the numbers.

I have no illusions that the US would have had a fatality rate along lines of China, Taiwan or other countries with a population culturally inculcated in ways alien to the USA; however, I also have no doubt the US's numbers would be better - perhaps significantly - than they are.  The benefit would have been simply to lower the numbers until treatment/vaccine attained.  

Instead, the US will continue to bumble and stumble through this epidemic.
We will come out on the other end, but there will be a lot of damage - some of it unnecessarily incurred - along the way.

I agree with this "take" on the situation. I really have no way to quantify how much better our results would have been, and I don't think anybody does. However, I agree it would have been better, possibly much better. Unfortunately, we may actually never "come out the end" of this virus. It seems that we probably will be fighting it forever. It is just a question of how bad that fight will be. Even if it turns out to eventually become "just another kind of flu" it will still be an issue.

[Goose]

Fundamentally, this is where I've been on Trump criticism.  I have my doubts about the legality/advisability of a national lockdown imposed from D.C.  But the messaging on (i) the gravity of virus, (ii) the expectation that Shelter-in-Place orders would be imposed by States as deemed advisable, (iii) the need to be smart/responsible in your daily activities (including on mask-wearing), (iv) the need to be diligent on the front-end [until given areas become comfortable that hospital capacity is not endangered (obviously, my add)], and (iv) the assurance that Feds would help states with $$ to help containment and tracking - and to help with those displaced from work - would have done wonders on national psyche and lowered the numbers.

I have no illusions that the US would have had a fatality rate along lines of China, Taiwan or other countries with a population culturally inculcated in ways alien to the USA; however, I also have no doubt the US's numbers would be better - perhaps significantly - than they are.  The benefit would have been simply to lower the numbers until treatment/vaccine attained.  

Instead, the US will continue to bumble and stumble through this epidemic.
We will come out on the other end, but there will be a lot of damage - some of it unnecessarily incurred - along the way.

I agree with this "take" on the situation. I really have no way to quantify how much better our results would have been, and I don't think anybody does. However, I agree it would have been better, possibly much better. Unfortunately, we may actually never "come out the end" of this virus. It seems that we probably will be fighting it forever. It is just a question of how bad that fight will be. Even if it turns out to eventually become "just another kind of flu" it will still be an issue.