Yeah, but looking back, that wasn't a lockdown. Go out and get food whenever you want. Go to your job, essential workers. Hell, go out for any reason and just say you're getting food.
An actual, shorter lockdown would be more effective then a pseudo-lockdown full of whining and TP shortages.
That's fair.
But I think the data shows it was pretty effective regardless. The curve flattened and hospitals weren't overwhelmed and that was the whole point because the area under the curve isn't going to change-- wasn't ever even capable of changing.
People aren't getting COVID at the grocery store. They're not getting it picking up take-out. They're not getting it from deliveries. This is true in the US, it's true in Europe, and it's true all the way back to the beginning in China. Uber Eats was VERY popular in China after they went on their much stricter lockdowns, and the virus still wasn't spreading there, not from THOSE sources.
It was spreading amongst meat packing plant workers. And construction workers. And line workers at manufacturing plants. And then... once the bars opened... it was spreading there. The worst.
I think we've got a pretty good handle on what spreads this virus. Not everyone believes or understands or is willing to do even the bare minimum, but the smart folks that are paying attention know what environments and what behaviors are most likely to spread it. The states that reopened bars and inside venues too quickly or too sharply have reversed that, and in most cases, the results are positive.
I don't believe that a full, true lockdown could have eradicated this thing entirely, and that means that something was inevitably going to slip through, and start the climb all over again. We must understand the ramifications of that knowledge, and let it shape future responses to similar events.