There won't be any economy if enough people keep getting sick and dying.

But OK, to your point - 75% of the states in the union currently have "some" form of restrictive stay-at-home policies but no complete lockdown. There are STILL 6-7 states that currently have few to no stay-at home restrictions including states that border others with high rates of confirmed infections. That's inaction becuase social distancing has proved to be an effective method of slowing the spread of the virus. PA fishing notwithstanding...

Can you say that those places that didn't make people stay home are doing 'better' economically than the hard hit spots? Maybe for the time being but the virus has shown to pop up in waves in different places. What happens when those places with lax social distancing policies sees infection rates rise quickly and have to scramble for resources?

If we had an early, coordinated response at the Federal level using the resources and manpower available to it to first acknowledge then confront and ultimately control the spread of the virus we would be a much better place than we are right now. I would also call that "inaction".

Should we have had a national stay-at-home order in early March? I believe so. That would have been definitive action. Clearly there are those who do not think that would have been a good idea. IMO, we are paying for that dice roll right now.