Ah, now THAT is really the entire question, isn't it?
This particular response, what we are doing right now, is an apocalyptic response that should be reserved for apocalyptic crises. A plague with a 50% death rate (literally a Black Death/12 Monkeys situation, nothing less). An active war zone with ongoing random mortar fire. The week or two after a hurricane when it is basically anarchy. That's it. Period.
Should this virus right now trigger a "massive response?" Absolutely. That does not mean a wartime lockdown, though. All the mobilization of medical and industrial resources - great idea. Postponing, or at least modifying or discouraging, large events - super idea. Encouraging changes in day-to-day-behavior, thinking twice about things - totally on board with that. Even things like split shifts at jobs, closing schools for a period - you could convince me. De facto martial law for 2-3 months, nobody leaves the house, tens of millions lose their jobs - BUZZ. It had better be the plague.
All of the things on that list, save the last one, were done to varying degrees in the 1918 epidemic (which I believe had a 10-15% death rate) and others, and were deemed pretty successful, reasonable precautions. No denying it would help to a measurable extent with the current situation. Does going from there to here help even more? Probably. Is it worth it? That's a hard no from me. Reasonable precautions, not crazy ones, that's what I am for. These are crazy.