A good look by the NYT into the enormous and baffling interstate disparities in coronavirus impact. Much of this is undoubtedly due to lockdown timing, but examples like California and Florida, where there was clear early spread, defy easy explanation nytimes.com/interactive/20… 
A lot of the arguments around lockdowns involve circular reasoning. The fact that Region A didn't experience the same crisis as Region B is attributed to Region A's superior policy response, as defined by the excess death count.
There is such a deep hunger for heroes and villains that it's blinding us to some weird patterns that could provide a useful clue. A disease is not a morality tale.
The central dogma of the lockdown response—that any large concentration of people not practicing strict social distancing will spiral into an uncontrolled coronavirus outbreak two weeks after they are lifted—is no longer supported all that well by evidence. But it persists.
The danger is that someplace will test this dogma, nothing very bad will happen to them, and then the measures will become impossible to sustain in the places that do need them (for whatever reason it is that we don't currently understand)
The problem with framing any specific anti-pandemic measure in strongly moral terms is that you can't walk away from it later without sounding like you're abandoning an ethical principle
