It's a good time for government to heed epidemiologists. It's also a good time for government to heed the work of Dan Kahneman and Amos Tversky.
the Cliff notes: K&T's Prospect Theory notes that human decision makers are basically shit at evaluating risks, and are easily swayed by how risks are framed / perceived.
Example: give somebody $30, and ask them if they now want to bet $10 on a coin flip. Most people will say yes.
Now tell them they have a choice between (A) $30 for certain, or (B) a coin flip with outcomes $20 or $40. Most people will pick (A).
Now tell them they have a choice between (A) $30 for certain, or (B) a coin flip with outcomes $20 or $40. Most people will pick (A).
Military example: give a platoon leader a choice between route (A) with a 100% chance that 10% of the platoon will die, and route (B) with a 90% chance that all of the platoon will live and 10% chance that all will die. Most platoon leaders will pick B.
now reframe it, describing route (A) as having a 100% chance that 90% of the platoon will live. Most platoon leaders will now pick A.
Basically the same choice, you've only changed the framing.
Basically the same choice, you've only changed the framing.
These choices become trickier when only some, or none, of the risks/rewards of the decision consequences are known. Ex.: mandatory airport temperature screening 
It's indisputable that limiting normal human interaction will slow down the spread of coronavirus, but it's also indisputable that imposing those limits have their own costs, both in dollars or human lives. How much, I have no idea; but they are there.
A little food for thought the next time somebody proposes X because "if it will save just one life."
In conclusion, epidemiologists are an excellent source of information about how to stop spreading infectious diseases; how to stop people from killing each other in toilet paper stampedes, not so much
