And most everything the media has been spewing 24/7 has been worst case scenarios based on guesses by modelers. It is causing more problems than it is helping and when the dust settles and the entire mess turns out to be much less deadly than we were led to believe the public will be even less likely to heed any warning in the future when something even worse actually comes about.
Those 'guesses' you describe aren't guesses. Science (and evidence in general) allows for accurate predictions and modeling. If it wasn't for quarantines it would most likely reach that peak. The quarantines are based on those models, based on the evidence we have firsthand and based on its genome. In the same way, that evolution has literally allowed us to predict species in the past, we can use evidence for the future that can be trusted. Flu vaccines would not save thousands of lives each year if it weren't for these predictions.
The science said that we needed to prepare by having test kits, and preventative measures, we didn't do either because people didn't believe in these 'models', so now we've had it come upon us faster than it should have, with significantly more cases than are being reported. Delaying the inevitable allows hospitals to not overcrowd. Failure to do so could see worst-case scenario 7-15% of people getting it die instead of the 1-3% with enough hospital capacity. Not to mention other conditions that cannot then be treated due to overcrowded beds.
Preparing calmly is the logical thing to do. Otherwise, you will reach something like that worst-case scenario. Weighing evidence against evidence then you can craft a response to it, but to cast it aside is absurd. The media actually got this one right. Countries don't cause economic collapse for the yearly flu.
Literally everything in science or good business decisions, foreign policy decisions, anything government-related, even education, or any choice in life are data-driven and based on evidence to then be used to logically determine a solution. If you start from a biased beginning the data leads to inaccurate results, but if you don't then you can actually understand the world more. Myself and others have been able to predict both the virus spread and recession due to evidence that we logically understood. It's the people that don't care to try that are left out. You don't have to be a statistician to know this. You don't have to be a scientist to understand the fundamentals, nor does an economics degree act as a tell-all. All it takes is receiving impartial news, researching individuals topics, and then expanding that to an understanding of various industries to craft an accurate (not ideological) worldview.
Sometimes there are multiple logical solutions, but you weigh the causes and effects of actions to come to a conclusion. The real world doesn't allow ideologues to have all the fun. It's the pragmatic individuals who make the best decisions.
It's really not magic. You might want to click my signature to make sure you aren't receiving biased/fake news. That's a good place to start.
