[Genuine Realist]

Those declines (Florida, Georgia) are in line with harder-hit states like New York, New Jersey, and Michigan, which maintain relatively aggressive lockdown measures—a result that lends credence to the growing number of studies questioning the efficacy of Draconian “stay-at-home” orders.

I like Rothman and he makes some good points in the article, but this is demonstrably wrong.  First, he links two articles.  The first one is titled "Early estimates of the indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on maternal and child mortality in low-income and middle-income countries: a modelling study", so unless he considers the US a low-income/middle-income country, it's not relevant to the US.  Their conclusions are:

Our estimates are based on tentative assumptions and represent a wide range of outcomes. Nonetheless, they show that, if routine health care is disrupted and access to food is decreased (as a result of unavoidable shocks, health system collapse, or intentional choices made in responding to the pandemic), the increase in child and maternal deaths will be devastating. We hope these numbers add context as policy makers establish guidelines and allocate resources in the days and months to come.

Note that they don't attribute the increase in child and maternal deaths only to "intentional choices made in responding to the pandemic" but also to "unavoidable shocks" and "health system collapse", both of which the lockdowns are meant to prevent.  Note that I do think that in many developing countries, harsh lockdowns are probably counterproductive, but I think the balances are different in rich countries versus middle income countries, and I don't think that study is relevant to evaluating California versus Georgia, for example.

The second article he linked is an editorial from a Swedish epidemiologist who was advising the Swedish government on its decision not to lock down.  I think the Swedish experience is relevant, but rather than link an editorial at the lancet making it sound like there was an actual research study on it, he should have just noted the Swedish decision and its justification.  And of course, the Swedish minister of health has since come out saying that were they to have done this again, they would have probably imposed somewhat harsher measures (though not as harsh as other countries).

But the big thing he gets wrong is the data on the declines in cases and deaths by state.

Since the peak in April, the average daily case load declined substantially in the three "harder hit" states (New York, New Jersey, Michigan); in New York by a factor of 10; in New Jersey by close to that; and in Michigan by 4-fold.  Cases in Florida and Georgia (and Louisiana) have been rising since mid-May.  California, Texas, and Arizona never peaked and have been slowly rising the whole time.  If Rothman wanted to make a case, he should have compared Florida and Georgia to California.

That being said, even the state most affected right now (Arizona) has an estimated effective Rt of 1.18 (https://rt.live/) to 1.23 (https://covidactnow.org/us/az?s=48058).  That's a lot less than New York at the height of its rising numbers, when Rt was on the order of 2 - 3.  A positive number implies exponential growth, so this will eventually get bad for Arizona if they don't do something, but it won't happen as quickly as it did for New York, and it will require fewer measures to go from Rt of 1.2 to <1 than it was going from 2+ to <2.

BC

BC

I didn't link because of the medical opinions,which are clearly dated. The collation of insufferably patronizing comments (from the Washington Post and Atlantic Monthly, yet) are what is of interest. Medically not wiser, but SOOOOOO smug.

[Genuine Realist]

Those declines (Florida, Georgia) are in line with harder-hit states like New York, New Jersey, and Michigan, which maintain relatively aggressive lockdown measures—a result that lends credence to the growing number of studies questioning the efficacy of Draconian “stay-at-home” orders.

I like Rothman and he makes some good points in the article, but this is demonstrably wrong.  First, he links two articles.  The first one is titled "Early estimates of the indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on maternal and child mortality in low-income and middle-income countries: a modelling study", so unless he considers the US a low-income/middle-income country, it's not relevant to the US.  Their conclusions are:

Our estimates are based on tentative assumptions and represent a wide range of outcomes. Nonetheless, they show that, if routine health care is disrupted and access to food is decreased (as a result of unavoidable shocks, health system collapse, or intentional choices made in responding to the pandemic), the increase in child and maternal deaths will be devastating. We hope these numbers add context as policy makers establish guidelines and allocate resources in the days and months to come.

Note that they don't attribute the increase in child and maternal deaths only to "intentional choices made in responding to the pandemic" but also to "unavoidable shocks" and "health system collapse", both of which the lockdowns are meant to prevent.  Note that I do think that in many developing countries, harsh lockdowns are probably counterproductive, but I think the balances are different in rich countries versus middle income countries, and I don't think that study is relevant to evaluating California versus Georgia, for example.

The second article he linked is an editorial from a Swedish epidemiologist who was advising the Swedish government on its decision not to lock down.  I think the Swedish experience is relevant, but rather than link an editorial at the lancet making it sound like there was an actual research study on it, he should have just noted the Swedish decision and its justification.  And of course, the Swedish minister of health has since come out saying that were they to have done this again, they would have probably imposed somewhat harsher measures (though not as harsh as other countries).

But the big thing he gets wrong is the data on the declines in cases and deaths by state.

Since the peak in April, the average daily case load declined substantially in the three "harder hit" states (New York, New Jersey, Michigan); in New York by a factor of 10; in New Jersey by close to that; and in Michigan by 4-fold.  Cases in Florida and Georgia (and Louisiana) have been rising since mid-May.  California, Texas, and Arizona never peaked and have been slowly rising the whole time.  If Rothman wanted to make a case, he should have compared Florida and Georgia to California.

That being said, even the state most affected right now (Arizona) has an estimated effective Rt of 1.18 (https://rt.live/) to 1.23 (https://covidactnow.org/us/az?s=48058).  That's a lot less than New York at the height of its rising numbers, when Rt was on the order of 2 - 3.  A positive number implies exponential growth, so this will eventually get bad for Arizona if they don't do something, but it won't happen as quickly as it did for New York, and it will require fewer measures to go from Rt of 1.2 to <1 than it was going from 2+ to <2.

BC

BC

I didn't link because of the medical opinions,which are clearly dated. The collation of insufferably patronizing comments (from the Washington Post and Atlantic Monthly, yet) are what is of interest. Medically not wiser, but SOOOOOO smug.