Yes, it was terrible precedent but it also has no relevance here. If you could abrogate fundamental rights with the commerce clause then those rights effectively don't exist and the Supreme Court has consistently ruled on this. You can't use the commerce clause to infringe on the right of free speech, the right to bear arms, etc. This has been argued in the court many times and the outcomes have been one-sided in favor of the individual right.

Freedom of travel -- what we are talking about with a "lockdown" -- is a thoroughly adjudicated fundamental right per the Supreme Court. Using the commerce clause to restrict travel in various ways has already been rejected by the Supreme Court, repeatedly.