In a way, it sounds like Gates is saying that a widespread societal lockdown is a wise move, which is what any reader of the Imperial study would conclude. Unfortunately, it seems that such a move was not politically palatable until the study's release.
The other thing is that panic is bad, panic leads to much much worse outcomes. I've read the report, and I have access to non-disclosed orders, one of the major point is: do not spread too much information for risk of panics.
So we're all discussing this, and if you've read the report you already know more than most people, and we know that the truth is in the middle.
But what we should really think about as clever individuals is that whatever is going to happen this year, and however long the lockdowns are going to be: it has to happen in order.
Why do people keep saying that panic is bad? Sometimes panic is the appropriate action and is necessary to motivate us to take extreme life saving action.
> panic: sudden uncontrollable fear or anxiety, often causing wildly unthinking behavior.
When fear runs wild and uncontrolled, it can paralyze us into inaction, or worse yet, motivate us unthinkingly towards action that may end more lives than even inaction would. Or to put it another way - panic is a great way to waste a bunch of perfectly good fear.
Fear should be properly harnessed, controlled, and guided through proper thinking and wisdom - then we can maximize our chances of it motivating us to take those extreme, life saving actions you alude to.
Stress - as caused by fear - can shorten your lifespan and reduce it's quality as well. When possible, one should guide ones fears towards reasonable risks you can do something about - where the costs might be worth it - and away from the irrational or unactionable - where they are not.
The federal government doesn't have the authority to lockdown the whole country, only the national and state borders. To lockdown the whole country all 50 states would need to individually issue orders, which is unlikely.
I suspect the governors of some rural states are likely to issue weaker social distancing orders, minimizing the economic impact but still benefiting from national economic relief legislation the same as states more severely effected.
The federal government might just get such authority from Congress, if things keep going the way they are.
There would certainly be a lawsuit claiming that it's unconstitutional. It might even win... eventually. You know, back when SCOTUS is in proper session, and it's all kinda moot.
You implore people not to encourage panic in one breath then make the absurd suggestion that the US is going to impose "mandatory lockdown to the whole country soon".
