You just can't legally enforce that an entire state remains inside their house for months on end because there is a virus with less than half a percent mortality rate. You just can't do that.
Let's pretend that their motivations are pure: I'm Governor Whitmer and I don't want anyone dying from this virus, so I'm locking every business, school, state park, and body of water down from the public. If you argue she has the right to do that, then there is a minimal distinction between that and outlawing cars, tobacco, fast food, and high-fructose corn syrup, all of which pose significant safety risks to the general public each year.
It's great for doctors to be on the air telling people to wear masks, minimize travel, avoid crowds, and for the elderly to stay isolated for now. It is NOT great for politicians to strip people of their freedoms to make choices for themselves.
I accept that the 15-day lockdown was necessary, given the data that we had at the time in mid-March. I also can live with the uncertainty that dragged that 2 weeks out to a month. We're now 6 weeks later with these restrictions for most states. At this point, what is the end game? What do you gain from carefully opening up in a month that is different from right now? Infections are going to rise once states begin to open up whether you do it today or whether you do it in August. So if you aren't going to keep a lockdown going until you have a vaccine in 12-18 months (and fully collapse society), you are facing the exact same scenario at whatever point you open up beforehand. So, what reasonable basis is there for doing what Virginia and Michigan are doing?