It also must be realized that the virus was going to cause a huge economic impact whether the government ordered shut downs or not. It is extremely wrong to assume that the economy would have just kept going as normal had we not enforced shutdowns. Apart from the many more deaths that would have been caused by not shutting down, it must be understood that the virus itself would still have caused hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people to get sick, a good percent of those to the point of hospitalization. While it is true that those over 65 are most likely to get sick, that is not always true, and HUGE portion of the active work force has gotten sick and would have had to miss time at their jobs anyway (in fact, many many more if there was no shutdown). That was always going to have a huge impact on our economy. I don't think these numbers are truly representative, but a recent CDC survey of 8 Georgia hospitals found that over 60% of hospitalizations were in people aged
under 65, with 25% of hospitalizations coming from those who had
no pre-existing high risk condition.
LINK Employee sickness alone would have still forced many small businesses to close, and without the small business loans and checks.
Not only that, but whether the government officially "ordered" a shut down or not, a huge segment of the population was also always going to guard their disposable income and refrain from personally visiting non-essential businesses. A huge percentage and often times majority of individuals say they will still refrain from reengaging in the economy even if states lift all lockdown restrictions.
LINK
No doubt it has been an extremely complex matter to try to balance all of the competing factors. But, quite simply, it is simplistic and silly to assume that the country would not have suffered extreme economic impact even had the government done nothing to "order" lockdown restrictions.
