This article has been published without first being peer-reviewed. It could stand a re-write. It could be misused exactly as u/usdodsgssog suggests, but there may be an underlying, useful truth, if the authors are open to it.

These two paragraphs represent a crude analysis much like digging through a land fill to find out how people lived.

Indeed, cities that implemented social-distancing and other public health interventions just 10 days earlier than their counterparts saw a 5 percent relative increase in manufacturing employment after the pandemic ended, through 1923. Similarly, an extra 50 days of social distancing was worth a 6.5 percent increase in manufacturing employment, in a given city.

“We find no evidence that cities that acted more aggressively in public health terms performed worse in economic terms,” says Emil Verner, an assistant professor in the MIT Sloan School of Management and co-author of a new paper detailing the findings. “If anything, the cities that acted more aggressively performed better.”

Was it the steps that the cities took that mattered, or was it the level of co-operation that allowed the steps to be taken?

If a city enjoys a competent administration and the confidence of its people, public action in the face of an unprecedented threat may be faster, more coherent, and more aggressive, because people are willing to accede to the administration's requests.

Afterward, the pattern of good will might also allow for a quicker rebound, because people know who can be trusted in chancy times.