[nullc]

Indeed.

By delaying the formal response it would have been possible to get most of of the economic harm of distancing while only getting a small part of the benefit.

Many people started distancing in the couple weeks before the shelter in place orders started. I know people that quit jobs to get away from the public, etc.

Yet many of those people who were increasing their distance, lowering their economic activities, etc. were also living with others who were in denial about the pandemic and where nothing short of a vague threat of citation/arrest or a closure of their hangouts would cause them to reduce their interaction... at least until people they know started dying, which would be too late for intervention (yet at that point they'd still drop out of economy!). In a "no order" world, you'd still get most of the economic hit of that household shutting down-- but they might often still get the infection, contribute load on the hospitals, and potentially die because one member of the household was less responsive to common sense.

Various legal and economic mitigations would also be less likely to exist absent an official response.