And I say that as someone who was extremely pro-shutdown early on and extremely anti-opening up when states opened up as early as they did.

There are 2 main reasons for shutdowns:

(a) get the virus under control.

(b) buy time - meaning, use the lockdown time to massively expand testing capacity, build up a substantial and robust contact tracing infrastructure, and establish clear and consistent guidelines (and messaging around those guidelines) for opening up safely - all to ensure keeping the virus under the control gained in (a).

As a country we have shown we have absolutely no interest in (or patience for) doing the things in (b).  So we could shut down for a month, but then open up and end up right back where we are now.  Sure, we'd be starting at a lower infection base when we open up, so it would take a while to build up back to the same point, but at what cost?

I think the cost of shutdowns is absolutely worth it if you get the benefits from both (a) and (b),  but I doubt the cost is worth it if you're only getting one of them. I'd rather the effort go into finding ways to get people to wear masks and avoid indoor spaces outside their homes rather than forcing shutdowns.