I can see those points and figured that is what you meant but wanted to make sure.
Short term I would argue that we know enough to make a good decision for the overall general wellbeing of society. Long term based on what some indications from the general population cases is that some people will have long term side effects but over all it will be within a percentage point or two of other similar viruses.
From my perspective there are two overall viewpoints/camps: Academic vs. Practical/Business.
You have the academic side in which they are used to having all the data and then making a decisions (much like the simulations I ran in college for my engineering and business classes) and where there was a certain threshold of data needed to make it comfortable to make a decision. One can never have too much data before making a decision.
On the other side is the practical/business side in which one is weighing other factors (economic, etc.) in the decision making and realizing that you cannot wait for all the data but need to make a decision based on what is known now and adjust later.
I see this quite often in professors that try to move over to the corporate side and get frustrated when they are not allowed all the time/money to gather the data they feel is necessary to make a decision. Or when they do have enough time they wait too long and wind up missing the market. There is also the fact of moving too quickly as some business leaders are apt to do and wind up with similar results. It boils down to a balance call between the two (Flaggy has said this on numerous occasions) and much of it comes down to leadership (to your point from a few days/weeks ago).
Earlier this year I definitely think we needed to know more about COVID before making a decision and that a shutdown was warranted till more information was known. Now the length of that shutdown can be argued either way but that is the befit of hind site. What we do know is that it is no where near as lethal and that for the vast majority of the population it isn't going to interfere with life and their activities. The media likes to hype the outliers or the uncertainty as that is what makes people tune in and in many cases have gone too far down that path, IMHO. For a situation such as this one must not look at the outliers but the overall effect on the general population as they are the ones you have to be concerned with. The 95 percentile of the population is where you concentrate at. Not saying you ignore the other 5% but over all you put the resources where it will do the most good and that is where your decision making process should end and start.
People (and their followers) for the most part fall into those two camps. And you don't have to look much further than this very board.
I completely ignored the whole emotional response (or lack thereof) in this whole matter, as while it does play into peoples thought/decision process, the breakdown is widely the same as the two camps I mentioned above. This whole subject would make a fascinating psychology PhD research paper and maybe if I go back to school I will get around to it.