It is the reluctance to admit that the guidelines may be insufficient. Like we're not controlling this well at all. I want wage earners and restaurant owners to survive this but when a significant portion of case spread can be traced back to restaurants we need to re-evaluate whether there even is a safe approach to having lunch indoors in restaurants. To really control this it's pretty clear we need to close those situations that put people in close contact with unmasked strangers like indoor dining, but we're unwilling to assume the cost that takes - we'd have to pay those people somehow which would be taxes or debt, but it could save lives to do it.
The sad reality though is we've neither managed to save the businesses & employees nor contain the spread.
I dunno, if the roof falls in on your home it's an unexpected tragedy but you still gotta address it and it's gonna cost you, that's kinda how I see this, its' a tragedy and it's expensive to address but its real, it's happened, and it has to be addressed. It's sad to see this countrys response being that trading the risk of people infected and dying is less important than ensuring government money and bailouts stay exclusively with the rich. I mean we've spent trillions on this and most average people have seen effectively nothing while many others lose jobs, cant afford food medicine or shelter, thousands are dying HORRIBLE deaths daily, and yet banks and investors manage to keep wealth skyrocketing. that seems really brutal and the thing that enables it is this idea that if we just keep risking exposure to ourselves and tenfold to workers by continuing to frequent restaurants unfettered, that most of them might keep employment and most of us wont die, but those that do will absolutely suffer so that banks and stocks don't have to suffer.
Anyway, That's why so much ire is directed at it I think, you become a straw man target for those upset at the greater scheme of screwing people just by taking part in it.