That's a disingenuous answer. There's an obvious choice here. The virus spreads through social contact, so what's needed to reduce spread and save lives is a sharp reduction in contacts between people. Closing places where people gather socially is a key component in any rational plan to reduce spread of the virus.
> Oh geez why didn't I or LA or the US think of that? Alright then, pack it in problem solved, let's just make sure everyone's compensated.
It is simple, and many countries have done it. I currently live in one that is doing precisely this - closing businesses and compensating them. The lockdown has reduced transmission without causing major financial hardships.
> Australia and NZ benefit from largely homogenous cultures
Australia and New Zealand are extremely diverse immigrant nations. They're very similar to the US in that regard.
> There's nothing authoritarian about the government imposing a lockdown?
There's nothing inherently authoritarian about it. If the government were cynically using emergency powers to suppress political opponents, I would call that authoritarian. But in an actual public health emergency, a democratic government implementing rational, effective public health measures allowed by law is not "authoritarian."
> Sure, except none of your conditionals there actually get bourn out. Many people question the effectiveness (again not just of reducing cases, but on providing a net positive impact to society) and in the US stimulus measures haven't been nearly precise enough to find themselves to the right hands.
First off, lockdowns are effective, so if people question them on that basis, they're simply misinformed, or they have a strong interest in preventing a lockdown. The latter is the reason why the president of the US has militated against lockdowns. His #1 priority is the stock market, and if a few hundred thousand Americans have to die so the DJIA can break 30k, he really doesn't care. And he's not the only one who thinks that way, which is why there's so much FUD around public health measures.
If there were a rational government that would explain the situation and the necessary measures, I believe there would be a majority in favor of a lockdown. And in fact, this spring, an overwhelming majority of Americans did favor lockdown measures (around 80%). Since then, it's become a highly partisan issue. Support among Democrats has remained high, but it's plummeted among Republicans. I think Trump's vocal opposition to public health measures had a lot to do with that. Even basic measures like wearing a mask are now partisan.