Hopefully the lesson learned in 2020 is that actual lockdowns work (see the countries that actually did them), but if you're too timid to enforce lockdowns (like the USA), then don't send mixed messages and do it half way. We could have 1. done a lockdown and gotten on with life after a very short period of economic hardship, or 2. ignored it and let a whole bunch of people die. Somehow our government managed to pick a worse option: 3. implement unenforced and unevenly enforced measures, which both craters the economy long term AND lets a whole bunch of people die. Great work, USA.
Moreover, I am not sure the strictness of lockdowns really correlated with outcomes - Sweden is a famous example, Belgium vs Netherlands another iirc. The only lockdowns that worked (so far) were either islands (meaning very few points of exchange that are easy to control) or totalitarian (e.g. China).
Or a little bit of both, like cops barging into somebody's home in Australia over a Facebook post. At that point I'll take liberty over safety, thank you.
My experience in WA and NV was that nobody cares. Even in "liberal" Seattle, a couple weeks after WA reopened indoor dining, we went out and couldn't find a spot in a restaurant in the entire neighborhood without a 20+ minute wait. We traveled to NV a few times in the last few months and it was always like that - everything that is allowed to be crowded, is.
Extended family in MA recently reported on the places nearby closing "due to the pandemic". Extended family in TX had a kid's birthday party at a water park. And, tangentially, MA has more cases and deaths per capita than TX...
If there were no lockdowns, the economy would have been mostly fine all along. The unemployment rate divergence across states seems to bear this out.