The implementation of shutdowns and social-distancing across almost every US state succeeded in stopping the exponential spread of the virus in its early days.
The argument
At the outset of the virus, numerous lockdowns and social-distancing across almost every US state succeeded in stopping the exponential spread of the virus. In struggling states including New York, Michigan and Louisiana, the pandemic's growth curve was able to flatten at the beginning. What was a crisis in these hotspots has been controlled due to the Trump administration.
Context
Inhibiting new infections to reduce the number of cases at any given time—known as "flattening the curve"—allows healthcare services to better manage the same volume of patients.
Premises
Counter-arguments
Outside of New York, Michigan and Louisiana, the rest of the US continued to see an overall rise in the infection rates in the virus' early days. States that had begun a partial reopening saw their number of cases increase the most compared to those that kept them in place.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] The premise names the instrument, and it is the wrong one for the conclusion. Lockdowns and distancing orders were issued by governors under state authority; there was no national stay-at-home order, and the federal position through that period pressed for reopening — the opposite of the measure being credited. [Rejecting P2] Three states are not the country. Outside them, infection rates continued to rise through the same weeks, and the states that reopened earliest recorded the largest subsequent increases, so the flattening tracks the stringency of individual state measures rather than any national response. [Rejecting P3] Coincidence in time is not attribution, and the conclusion requires the whole period rather than its opening weeks. The same country went on to record among the highest per-capita case and death tolls of any large wealthy state, which is the relevant comparison for a claim about who would handle the pandemic better.