People should care about the facts, whatever they may be. If the fatality rate really is lower than what was previously reported, it's a disservice to the public to not report that. These are objective data and statistics, if they're accurate and put in the proper context (e.g. grouped by ages and pre-existing conditions).
The exchanging deaths vs. economic health thing is a subjective policy position, which is different, and doesn't necessarily change even if the fatality rate is lower than reported. If it still appears to be more contagious and more fatal than the flu, I think most people will continue to support the lockdowns.
"If it still appears to be more contagious and more fatal than the flu"
If? The amount of magical thinking required to still have some doubt about this is undefinable. Spain is converting ice-rinks into morgues to store the freaking bodies. NYC has run out of ventilators and the federal response is something like: NY could have had some at a good price in 2015.
I'm just speaking in a neutral way. As in "if it remains the case that...". Of course, I do think it is the case, and am not doubtful at all. It seems to be incontrovertible. I'm talking about how I expect the population to react based on their perception of the situation.
The exchanging deaths vs. economic health thing is a subjective policy position, which is different, and doesn't necessarily change even if the fatality rate is lower than reported. If it still appears to be more contagious and more fatal than the flu, I think most people will continue to support the lockdowns.