Every elected official has to care about economic outcomes. Because the electorate cares. Hell, some political scientists think that this is the most prominent issue people vote on. And that's assuming elected officials actually don't care about their responsibilities to their constituents, which may well be true for some, but it's wrong to assume as a blanket motivation (and I'd go farther: it actively aids corruption to cast all politicians in the same mold, because to do so is to lazily shrug off the responsibility of making case-by-case judgments, which is itself what enables uncaring leadership to operate without pushback).

The only thing that might matter more broadly than prosperity/poverty is life and health.

Are you suggesting they’re shutting the economy down just for the hell of it? I can assure you that politicians do not harm the pocket books of their campaign donors on a whim. There is almost no one profiting from this.

I think we can all agree that the shutdown happened because of a genuine concern for what the new unknown virus could do. The last coronaviruses SARS and MERS could wipe 10-20% of the population, so that the baseline to prepare for.

Now we know the virus is not quite as deadly as anticipated (around 2%). And we know the economic impact is disastrous (+15% unemployment in the US after 3 weeks). So the strategy will have to be re-evaluated eventually.

My opinion is that politicians taking the decisions are too remote from people experiencing economic hardship, so they will let the economy get much much worse for way too long.

Or are you too remote from people who would be dying.