I'm glad you're showing concern. I don't think I'm equipped to take any particular side, because I can clearly see an argument for both courses of action, with the only differentiator being your order of priorities with regards to realizing a commitment to an ideal.

If you happen to prioritize the ideal of equality in all things; including mindshare/being heard, then of course the answer to your question is no.

If you prioritize the minimization of loss of life within a particular timescale however, the answer could be both yes or no; a fact that I think leads to most of the controversy on this topic.

For instance, those prioritizing minimization of loss of life due to viral spread and lack of treatment would not be interested in hearing about you wanting things to open things back up, not condoning contact tracing, etc. as that runs completely counter to trying to minimize the rate of spread in the immediate term. It is something that can be done now, while the unknowns get figured out, and we have faith that the best and brightest amongst us are doing their best to make it happen as quickly as possible. Efforts to disrupt that societal momentum to them are something to be minimized.

Those who have concern in regards to the capacity of the economic system to change in order to meaningfully accommodate the necessary change in circumstances created by the massive disruption to the underlying assumptions on which the previous Market's optimizations were based, and who are concerned that this abrupt transition may cost lives via increases in crime/joblessness/homelessness/systemic collapse combined with catastrophic failure of the societal infrastructure requisite to coordinate the efforts of everyone in ways that help sustain everyone at a higher standard of living than an every-man-for-himself arrangement can? They may see a viable direction in not censoring protests of the lockdown approach, and opening things back up for the sake of trying to limit the damage done. Which, by the way, makes that type of person extremely distasteful to the first group.

To someone more interested in just having everyone make their own decisions, and wishing that there was a mandate that employer's must honor an employee's wishes to comply with lockdown; but that there was no restraint other than due diligence on those that wish to try to keep the economic machine going and in the process of change? I see value to both sides getting first-class attention. I'm convinced we're going to be saddled with this thing for a long time, so I don't feel that brutal, immediate short term measures are necessarily going to do a great job at keeping things stable. On the other hand, we're definitely in a situation that carries with it a very real and tangible health risk, that I have no wish to sacrifice people on the altar of continuity of the previous economic status quo in order to sustain.

Evaluate, measure your risk, do as you wilt, accept the responsibility for the outcome, and don't begrudge others for the decisions they make in doing the same. It is really the only sensible way forward. I really don't care if all that "wealth" out there disappears in a flash as the economy bounces back down to more reasonable intrinsic values. I just hope everyone is willing to get along with, take care of, and treat each other with dignity and respect.

Then again, that's what I thought we were doing all along, and boy, did I have that wrong. So, take it or leave it I guess.

It certainly doesn't help that we're in the midst of a national crisis in terms of credibility management. Civic trust/civic institutions being demonstrably worthy of significant trust would be nice.