I don't entirely blame the media. Some of this is over-pessimism on public health officials. For instance in the Bay Area, the SIP's argument was justified pri

I don't entirely blame the media. Some of this is over-pessimism on public health officials. For instance in the Bay Area, the SIP's argument was justified primarily from hospital capacity (https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pages/order-health-officer-031620.aspx https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pages/order-health-offi...). It wasn't (as has since become) suppress the transmission rate until a test, trace, isolate system can be restored. [1] Even on April 7, Santa Clara (https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/07/coronavirus-santa-clara-county-could-see-2500-to-12000-cases-by-may-1/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/07/coronavirus-santa-cla...) was still projecting 2500-12000 cases by May 1. The higher end of that was highly unlikely even then (that would require cases growing faster than Seattle had been pre-SIP). In retrospect, even the best case scenario was also too pessimistic - at current rates Santa Clara won't hit 2500 until after May 21 -- double the time the "best case" had estimated. Compare the communication to say Germany or New Zealand, where clear numbers, confidence metrics, range of possibilities, and objectives are outlined. [1] Which actually has already happened. I'm not exactly sure what the goal is at this point - we have metrics but it's a bit unclear what they are based on (esp. the hard to reach testing numbers).