John Mayhugh,
At least since Teddy Kennedy decided to bork Bork, whatever civil discourse we enjoyed began its slide down the proverbial slippery slope. It gained unstoppable momentum when Mrs. Clinton thought she had gamed the election, quit working, and the unthinkable became a reality.
I agree with most of what you write, but I don't think the frustration is due to "inconsistent communications and goals". It is the content of these, communications and goals, that for many of us see as being in conflict with the "science", the "data", and the so-called stated goals.
No matter what Trump says or does, half of the elected government, most of the bureaucracy (whose pay is guaranteed and role is expanded), the opinion makers (the networks, Times, Post, etc., Hollywood and entertainment, and the Academy), and many of those who are not directly hurt today (some who are receiving more money for not working than if they returned to their jobs) rail with ferocity against him. Like the president should be responsible for New York's and the northeast corridor's lack of respirators and virus specific test kits.
As to William G and the responses from the UK trio. I never met the guy but I am told that he is greatly involved in golf and this site, including attempting to revive the King Putter by hosting the event at Bandon. If I have the right guy, he is a dentist, so his knowledge and understanding of "science" and the "data", especially as these relate to health issues, probably outstrip by a substantial margin those of professionals working with patents, watering and caring for decorative plants, and growing turf grass for golf. Just because he may not bat from the Left doesn't make his OT comments any less valuable or out of line than those from that side. I am just saying, among friends of course!
Asserting how much worse of we would have been had the government not shut our countries down is speculation at best. There are "data" suggesting otherwise, e.g. Sweden's experience, American states that didn't take draconian measures, areas that didn't condemn sick seniors to nursing homes where they spread the virus and were left mostly to fend for themselves. An enterprising PhD candidate without a festering statist bias might consider as a thesis topic the correlation of C-19 deaths to the major source of funding for various levels of assisted living and nursing homes. My bet is that Medicaid dependent facilities have a vastly disproportionate mortality rate.
In our treatment of the elderly, I am with Mr. Kavanaugh. We should all hope to be loved and cared for like he does for his dad.
Lastly, I am unaware of a service or facility where I could go to be infected with C-19 and cared for through the illness. I doubt that my insurance would cover it, but I'd be willing to pay a reasonable amount out-of-pocket to remove any chance of infecting anyone else and have the travel restrictions lifted.
This may sound whacky, but I found it odd when I visited the Ohio State Scarlet course while being renovated circa 2006 and learned that the majority of the elderly alumni were up in arms because it meant more than a year of golf lost during construction. The course had only had minimal changes since opened in the late 1930s and it was overgrown with junk trees and suffering from extremely poor turf conditions. The renovation was sorely needed. Over a decade later and in a similar demographic, I am now much more sympathetic to their POV.