[Mahler9th]

"I suspect it will be the lens of history that really tells us if the huge cost to the economy and the disruption was necessary, or total over reaction. The hindsight is 20-20 thing. "

That will be difficult. Any proper analysis would have to include a lot of variables, including the healthcare costs of morbidity associated with the Covid-19 disease. And of course as part of that, the realized healthcare costs (which will be rolled up actuals and estimates) and the cost avoidance from austere measures (which will be based on models). The latter could most certainly be affected by assumptions made about the spread of the virus that would be anticipated without austere measures.

I think it is important to remember that even without austere measures, the public's basic understanding of the morbidity and mortality associated with this somebeetch virus would have caused many (perhaps most?) to avoid large gatherings, restaurants, bars, casinos, airplanes, cruise ships and on an on.

All of these types of businesses are part of our economy. The public would get this understanding from the thousands of sources reporting on the internet, tv, radio, and in print. And of course the internet would include a broad spectrum of social media like these Forums.

Then there is the litigation cost, both ways (with and without austere measures). For example, if you were GM and there were no gubment orders to shelter in place, would you close down your factories anyway? If not, how would you protect yourself from widespread litigation?

I think that the numbers of "tests" and the numbers of deaths only tell part of the story.

I think there are already "economic impact" studies well underway in the public health and economics fields and related areas. And I think it is likely that there are myriad published studies on the economic impacts of things like social distancing compared to the morbidity, mortality and costs of alternative approaches or no approaches at all.