The world tried to control the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at national and regional levels through various mitigation strategies. In the first wave of infections, the most extreme strategies included large-scale national and regional lockdowns or stay-at-home orders. One major side effect of large-scale lockdowns was the shuttering of the economy, leading to massive layoffs, loss of income, and livelihood. Lockdowns were justified in part by scientific models (computer forecast and simulations) that assumed exponential growth in infections and predicted millions of fatalities without these 'non-pharmaceutical interventions' (NPI). Some scientists questioned these assumptions. Regions that followed other softer mitigation strategies such as work from home, crowd limits, use of masks, individual quarantining, basic social distancing, testing, and tracingat least in the first wave of infectionssaw similar health outcomes. Clear results were confusing, complicated, and difficult to assess. Ultimately, in the USA, what kind of mitigation strategy was enforced became a political decision only partly based on scientific models. We do not test for what levels of NPI are necessary for appropriate management of the first wave of the pandemic. Rather we use the 'inverse-fitting Gompertz function' methodology suggested by anti-lockdown advocate and