You make some fair points, but this is not a test one passes or fails. One wrong answer may be one too many, because a pandemic requires a chain of responses that is only as strong as its weakest link.

In this case, I think you get Question 7, the one about people living with high-risk people, wrong. If everyone had a bubble child at home, I suspect there would be dramatic changes in the way everyone behaves. Outliers require individual action, but, as a sage once observed, quantity has a quality all its own.

Likewise, the argument that essential workers’ families face that risk anyway doesn’t hold. Many essential workers are following very strict protocols at home; they are committed to their essential services, and so they are committed to safe cohabitation, too. I would analogize those workers to soldiers. We cannot say “Soldiers take risks every day, so why shouldn’t civilians take the same level of risk?” The answer, of course, is that the soldiers are soldiers and they are fighting largely so that the rest of us can live at peace. They are heroes, but we do not need to expose ourselves to their risks out of guilt.

FWIW, I believe that most states are doing the right thing — locking down until the benefits of locking down are achieved, and then slowly reopening to see if those benefits can be retained. The lock-down should not be permanent, so we should not discuss it as if it were permanent. But it does afford a baseline from which looser regimes can be assessed.