The initial response that we all took was appropriate. There was a new virus with unknown effects, and the initial projections were alarming.

We needed to slow the spread.

However, it preempts the question: slow the spread until what/when?

Some people argue that we need to slow it until a proper vaccine has been developed. I and others, would argue that the goal should be to slow the spread until we learn more and can act intelligently and effectively. And I think, based on the evidence, that we have gone past that point already.

What we now know that we didn't in the beginning:
-The virus is significantly less dangerous than initially theorized, even untreated.
-There are effective treatments that have been and are being developed.

What we would face by opening up:
-Accelerated rate of infection, which could/would strain hospital and healthcare facilities
-Increasing the death and morbidity toll for those who are unable to get proper treatment

What we are faced with by keeping the status quo:
-Risking neglecting other health risks being exacerbated by our current action, as argued by these professors.
-Risking the effects from this powerful economic suppression, which would consequently lead to new health risks in the population.
-Exacerbating social unrest, as these economic disruptions and malaise sweep through the populace

I believe these professors are correct that the numbers would be worse by keeping the status quo.