[bleah1000]

I said in my comment that I think that it might be that lock downs worked in certain situations, but not all. From your comment, it sounds like there is no amount of evidence that will convince you that lock downs are more nuanced than the statement that they are 100% effective in all cases.

Remember, they weren't really full lock downs, they were these partial kind of lock downs. Even in the US, some places did curfews, some did not. At the very least, you have to admit that there have been some measures under the lock down umbrella that were not as effective as others. If you can't even examine your faith in your statement, you are right that there is no point in discussing this subject further.

[halfmatthalfcat]

Lockdowns are only effective if they are much closer to "all or nothing" than "regions can pick and choose".

That's the entire reason why the Tri-State area worked together to create and follow each other's lockdown policies.

If you have a piecemeal approach, people will flee the lockdown and bring the virus to wherever they go to continue the cycle. The lockdown (and masks) only work if you have high levels of coordination and compliance. That's why having a national policy is much more effective than a regional or state-level policy. That's also why China was much more effective (from the outside, if you believe anything about their numbers) than the West was.