> What "false sense" are you talking about, exactly?
The fact that we were being told to expect Italy/New York levels of hospital overruns ALL OVER the country (hint: field hospitals that hardly got used weren't just deployed in NYC)? And that we're still being told that hospitals ALL OVER the country are in danger of being brought to their knees by re-opening state economies right now? Meanwhile, the nurses that aren't furloughed are making nightly dance videos during their shifts.
I don't remember that at all. I remember being warned (correctly) that this was a possibility, and that lockdowns were needed to "flatten the curve" and prevent it. That kind of framing was pervasive. But I remember it being very explicitly presented as a caution and not an inevitability.
And as it happened, people took heed. And it worked. We beat it.
Can you cite the specific coverage you're thinking of?
Basically: this seems like a bit much to me. The media warned us of something. We listened. The warning worked. And now you want to attack "the media" because the thing they warned us might happen didn't... because they warned us.
The fact that we were being told to expect Italy/New York levels of hospital overruns ALL OVER the country (hint: field hospitals that hardly got used weren't just deployed in NYC)? And that we're still being told that hospitals ALL OVER the country are in danger of being brought to their knees by re-opening state economies right now? Meanwhile, the nurses that aren't furloughed are making nightly dance videos during their shifts.