I know we don't have the ability to correctly predict the number of U.S. deaths that would occur (1) with and (2) without the measures that are currently being taken. But suppose we did have exactly that ability and we could run the calculation with a high degree of confidence in the analysis.

As you look at the various scenarios that could be generated, what is the number of incremental U.S. deaths that would be prevented by the current measures where you would cross over from the "this is overkill" into the "this is the right response" camp? Does such a number exist?

Another way of asking this might be whether most of the disconnect about whether measures make sense because we have no good way of the numbers (and some just don't believe the impact on lives lost will be very severe), or are some people simply more comfortable doing a cost:benefit analysis comparing the economic and other impacts of extreme social distancing vs. the ability to save life?

I don't have a good answer here — I'm asking to stimulate discussion.