“Conclusion
Although we estimate modest effects of SIP policies, our results should not be taken to imply that the actions of government officials had little effect on the pandemic. There may have been other policies that better mitigated the spread of COVID-19, although SIP orders have been arguably the most drastic and controversial policy. Furthermore, we observe nationwide trends in all outcomes, and these trends may have been highly responsive to the public health recommendations, emergency declarations, and the behaviors of high-profile politicians. Our results also do not mean that sheltering in place per se is an ineffective way to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. If SIP policies did not meaningfully increase the extent to which people actually sheltered in place or socially distanced, our results have nothing to say about the health and societal benefits of staying at home and reducing physical contact with others.
The explanation for our null findings is likely nuanced and multifaceted. One part of the explanation is that many people were already staying at home and social distancing voluntarily even in the absence of SIP policies. Another part of the explanation is, perhaps, that few people who weren’t already changing their behavior complied with the policies. After all, SIP orders appeared to cause less than a 1% decrease in mobility. There was, however, approximately a 50% decrease in mobility nationwide between February and April. The nationwide reaction to COVID-19 almost surely decreased the spread of the disease. SIP orders likely would have been more effective in slowing the spread had more people complied with them, and future SIP orders would likely be more effective if they are coupled with greater enforcement. But we find little evidence that SIP orders, as implemented, had much effect over and above all the other public messaging and voluntary behavior changes occurring nationwide. Although we find no detectable health benefits of SIP orders, we also find that they accounted for a small share of economic costs associated with the pandemic, consistent with other studies (6⇓⇓–9).
Our study is certainly not the last word on this topic. Assessing the effects of SIP orders is difficult, and more information and better designs may become available in the future that enable more precise or more credible estimates. Furthermore, our study focuses on the early months of the pandemic, and the effectiveness of SIP orders could change over time. However, the previously presented evidence on the effectiveness of SIP orders appears to be misleading, and there is currently no compelling evidence to suggest that SIP policies saved a large number of lives or significantly mitigated the spread of COVID-19. However, this does not mean that voluntary social distancing—SIP practice as distinct from policy—was ineffective.”
Maybe read your own article before you shoot yourself in the foot or argue in favor of the opposition? They state that voluntary initial shelter in place undoubtedly helped. And that has places enforced or had populations actually adhered to SIP orders that it would have helped. We never locked down. People still travelled. Went to states that were open so they could eat in a Waffle House and brought it home. It’s not that they didn’t help. It’s that we never even tried.