Luckily, this virus is not making us zombies, or killing our children. It's killing our elders and people with a weakened immune system; it's sad but it's great. It could have been a lot worse.
A good chunk of the USA very explicitly did not "X" anywhere near as hard or smart as they could have.
Besides, lockdowns, which have never really been done like this before, may just be something that can not work. You can't suddenly demand that everyone in a society be in the 80%th percentile of conscientiousness, and also be just hunky dory with not going to work anymore and being under effective house arrest for extended periods of time.
This is probably one of those cases where HN is not equipped to make an accurate assessment, being exceedingly preferentially chosen from high conscientiousness and college-educated populations (as, if nothing else, college indicates a certain amount of discipline). If you project yourself and your peers out onto society, you are going to grossly misunderstand the real society. Plans to avoid contagion need to deal with the society that we have, not the one we want.
I post this as a segue into the general observation that there's still way too many people speaking about hypotheticals as if we're not six months into this process, and have plenty of concrete data to consult rather than theory. If the purpose of X is Y, we are not in a place where we should start doing X to get Y; we are in a place to look to see if X got us Y. In this particular case, it apparently did not.
(It's also not a great time to say "Well, X would have led to Y if we just X'd harder". In a good chunk of the world, we X'd as hard as we can. If we didn't get Y, it's not something you're going to get in the future, either. That is something we have to accept and deal with, not wish we could just X harder.)