I am always for questioning assumptions and this post does that. It is good to question common accepted thoughts.
I think you COULD be right. But a few things could happen. With social distancing that need to be accounted for:
1. I believe the following is possible: this is a novel virus. It needs to replicate in a living organism in order to "survive". If it is not allowed to infect anything, it could die off and be gone. This is unlikely since it would mean we would have to reach a point where no living humans at all are infected and any other animals it could potentially infect.
2. The warm weather could effect it and it could die off (again wishful thinking)
3. We could discover improved treatment for the disease - vaccines, protections, treatments that reduce mortality rates. This is the most likely solution, IMO. If we get a vaccine, this becomes a MUCH less impactful issue. If we reduce the mortality rate, rates if infection, etc. - this becomes much less if an issue.
All of these outcomes require time, and the lack of social distancing will reduce time and increase deaths immediately. We have run multiple tests now to prove this. China was locked down. Italy, less so and the results were far more devastating. The US is following a similar curve...less adherence and rapidly increasing effects.
But, questioning where the line is, is intelligent. Trump said it himself I believe - the cure cannot be worse than the disease. Short term, I think this makes sense. And we may have to go into cycles of work and quarantine until we figure out a better treatment.
As far as questioning norms - it seems appropriate here to mention Ignaz Samelweiss during this time. He questioned norms and was ridiculed heavily for it. And all we hear during this epidemic is the advice he pioneered.