Maybe, just maybe you shouldn't look at new cases as your measurement when you are constantly ramping up testing. If you test more people of course you will find more people with the virus. You should be looking at hospitalizations and those numbers are pretty much down across the board.

For most of the United States the total lockdown has been overkill. A better way to compare the US to most European countries would be to compare individual states and even then some states have rural populations that would have been fine without lockdowns. For example, New York City is one of the hardest hit cities but the rest of the state of New York has had significantly less cases and deaths. Is this because of the lockdowns? Probably, but at the same time our hospitals have not been running at capacity or even close to that (some have even furloughed workers because all elective procedures have been cancelled).

If the goal is to find a cure before we lift lockdowns we better do something to help those economically impacted by them (and giving away free money is not a viable option). If the goal is to not overwhelm our healthcare systems we are doing that great but a country wide lockdown is not viable either. The New York Times has a good map [0] to show how little most of the country has been affected. That is why state governments should be handling the outbreaks in their own state instead of shutting down the country all together.

These lockdowns were implemented because we had no idea how this virus worked or where it was. We have a much better idea now and each state can act accordingly.

[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-c...

It seems lazy for that website to not show per-capita numbers or positive test percentage numbers.

https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en/test