Shutdowns in a pandemic is not a new concept. See 1918-9, when early shutdowns/distancing made a big difference in SL vs Philadelphia and zone other big cities that weren’t as strict.
Yes, for a virus that has a legitimate high mortality rate. This one does not. This is no Spanish Flu. And I'm not talking about the case mortality rate, because that number is very inaccurate. I am making the argument that the shut-down is not worth the trade-off. Look at the trade:
Economy which sustains the lives of hundreds of millions of people in the U.S.
for a hundred thousand lives, many of whom would have died anyway within the next year. How many die every year from all sources? Millions in the U.S. alone.
A robust cconomy that pays for the health care of those affected by the virus
for government bail outs, over and over again, with tons of debt that, ironically, will require a robust economy to pay back.
Significant chance of civil unrest, global financial shocks and collapse, global wars
for a chance that hospitals can treat all of the diseased without being over-run (the virus will still not be contained and you will still have many thousands of deaths, just not all at the same time).
There is more, but the "trade" already is just patently stupid at this point, so I'm not taking it any further.