Again, I am most displeased by the fact that the "let's be cautious" voices have now fully committed to being as batshit extreme as the "it's just the flu!" crowd. Especially when they answer truthfully, but not likely.
Here's a good analogy:
If you're about to get on a flight, it would be TRUTHFUL for a flight safety expert to tell you "there is absolutely a chance that this plane is going to crash. There's a chance that there is an undetected mechanical failure. It's also possible that the pilot will make a fatal mistake. Everyone on this plane could die."
All of that is true. But useless, panic-causing information. On the spectrum of possible things that could happen, that is the extreme worst, with an incredibly low likelihood of happening. Sure, we need to be aware of them and protect against them in general -- let's train our pilots, inspect the equipment, etc. But nothing is a 100% guarantee, that is true.
We need to agree on the common ground of what COVID goal we're aiming for. It has to be a realistic goal. A goal of "total eradication, zero risk" is as foolish as a complete disregard and "it's just the flu, we shouldn't do shit."
If one of these experts would give a good predicate of "understand that the data give us a range of possible outcomes, some are extreme -- and I'll talk about the extremes, because those bookend our analysis and decisionmaking, but experience tells us that the most likely outcomes are somewhere well in between those two extremes." That would be really damned helpful.