The spread is happening in private settings and households not at businesses which are following the rules. It also can/did happen at businesses (especially bars) which were not following the rules. The vast majority of businesses in South Florida are following the rules.
If more restrictive rules worked then South Florida should be doing better than the parts of Florida with less restrictions. South Florida has always been the most restrictive and had the worst outbreak.
Putting in hard lockdowns for longer does not "smash" the virus. All of the places in Europe and the US that had more severe restrictions came down to a steady state and report several hundred cases per day consistently.
You're missing the point of a lockdown. It's not solely a question of whether virus is spreading inside the doors of the business. It's about whether the virus is spreading in the Uber on the way to the business. It's about whether people are congregating outside the business. It's about whether employees have to take mass transit or carpool to get to work at the business, during which time virus spreads.
And yes, the hard lock downs do smash the virus. "Several hundred cases per day" in places with populations in the tens of millions -- that is indeed smashed. France, for example, when from over 4,000 cases per day... Over the last 2 months, down to 400-600 cases per day. The population of France is 3 times the population of Florida -- So that would be the equivalent of Florida having only 100-200 cases per day, as opposed to 10,000 per day. Yes, I'd say 95-99% fewer daily cases is smashed.
As one example, Spain had a true hard lockdown. After reaching a stead state in the mid 300s of new cases per day, an increase began in the beginning of July and the seven day moving average is now 1437.
Yes, let's use Spain as an example. Perfect.
Population of Spain -- 47 million.
Population of Florida -- 21.5 million.
Spain case peak: About 7,800 Florida peak-- unknown at this time, but maybe about 11,000
Spain 7 day average through June -- About 350 cases.
Now in July, a couple months after the end of the lockdown, cases are starting to rise again -- They are back up to about 1400.
Current in Florida -- 11,000 on average.
So... population of 47 million -- 2-3 months after end of a hard lock down, only 1400 cases.
Florida, population of 21 million, 2-3 months after end of a very soft lock down, 11,000 cases.
So Florida has about 20x more daily cases on a population-adjusted basis.
There is no evidence that severe hard lockdowns lead to less cases in total. They certainly "flatten the curve" and suppress spikes but they absolutely do not eliminate the virus. Even in the model of response and mask compliance, South Korea, the current seven day moving average is at 7.3% of the peak and is pretty much flat and constant.
You're missing the whole point --- So you're saying, there is no difference between 500 cases and 10,000 cases. No difference between 300,000 deaths and 3,000 deaths??
As you just said -- Lockdowns suppress spikes --- So if you suppress the spikes and keep them low enough, while you develop improved treatments and vaccines -- you save lives!!!!! Hundreds of thousands of lives!!!
You're saying that since a lockdown would only save 90% of the potential lost lives, since 10% of the deaths may still occur... we might as well just give up and let everyone die??
The only way to eliminate this virus with isolation and quarantines would be a literal shut down of the world for 6-8 week where nobody could leave their house for any reason. Not food, not medical care, nothing. No essential business or government operations. When you have a virus that can spread asymptomatically you can not eliminate it with these methods.
There you go again. Since it's not practical to eliminate 100% of the virus, we shouldn't even bother taking steps that can eliminate 90% of it????