How authorities lost their lockdowns

Coronavirus lockdowns are definitively ending; the question is why they failed. There is no single answer, but rather several, ranging from arbitrary to authoritarian. Looking back, the lockdowns were predestined to fail; looking forward, the authorities - government and expert - who backed them, all but ensured they will not return to the same degree.

The coronavirus timeline was exceptionally short before triggering the most sweeping lockdowns in American history. On Jan. 21, America's first coronavirus case was identified; almost one month later, on Feb. 26, America's first local transmission of coronavirus occurred. Roughly two weeks later, in mid-March, state lockdowns began; by month's end, most states had implemented them.

Reopenings didn't begin till mid-May. Nationwide, many restrictions continue and the timing of fully lifting them remains unclear - even as some states try to partially reinstate them. What is clear is this: Despite their unprecedented three-month grip and COVID'19's continued presence, lockdowns' strangle hold has been broken.

How could something so unprecedented, have arisen so quickly, gripped so tightly and then ended so abruptly even with coronavirus still so prevalent?

Lockdowns' sudden imposition, their statewide implementation and the dissimilarity in individual state responses gave them an instantly arbitrary nature. Different states treated similar areas and activities differently; individual states treated different areas and activities similarly. The glaring contradictions became increasingly obvious - and onerous - as the lockdowns dragged on.

Frequently, the resulting perception was that the lockdowns were inconsistent at best and unnecessary at worst. The inconsistencies often exposed errors in states' responses - New York's handling of nursing homes being among the even denounced President Trump's early China travel ban. Initially, authorities dismissed masks' value; currently they are considered important. Can asymptomatic people transmit the disease? The WHO said no as late as March 26. How dangerous is transmission from surfaces? The jury still appears to be out, but the biggest concern is now airborne transmission.

This contradictory nature also extended to the authorities' approach and goals. Despite the primary aim being preserving public health, health care for non-coronavirus conditions was often impeded. Doctor visits dropped, as well as emergency room visits, because patients feared the virus more than other serious conditions.

Of course, the authorities' approach was astronomically expensive. Over 40 million have filed for unemployment, small businesses shuttered and virtually every American's life and work has been affected. America's gross costs are just that - gross: First quarter GDP fell five percent, Q2 will be even worse and the IMF has estimated that annual GDP will fall eight percent. CNBC estimates that just federal intervention alone (from legislation and Federal Reserve action) currently amounts to $8 trillion.

The full costs will never be fully known; unfortunately, in many individual cases, they also will never be recovered. As a result, in addition to the public's evidentiary and emotional doubts, there was severe economic damage too.

There also was no little hypocrisy in the authorities' actions. Neil Ferguson (dubbed "Professor Lockdown" in UK tabloids), Britain's lockdown proponent, who was caught "not social distancing" with his married lover, was a comically extreme form. However, examples closer to home were hardly lacking.

Lockdowns' strongest supporters were often among the least affected by their negative consequences. Government officials implementing and enforcing the lockdowns had ways of circumventing impacts - all while still being paid.