If we look at three states. California and Ohio have a very close population density. Ms has about 1/4 the population density as California and Ohio. We know that California is majorly Democrat and threw the kitchen sink at covid with some of the nation's most sweeping restrictions and a massive mask mandate with a high compliance rate. Ohio had restrictions but nowhere near as draconian as Californias and they didn't last as long. Things like business closures, type of business restrictions, high mask compliance rate etc. Then we have MS with a much lower population density but largely doesn't implement massive closures and mandates and let people make the decision. Keep in mind California is a liberal ran state and it's liberals who claimed to have all the answers about what everyone needed to do.
Admittedly case data is sketchy because it can be easily skewed by the availability of tests. But i't still gives a snapshot when comparing US states who likely had the same availability issues.
Supporters of big government mandates will argue that Ohios quick action and large mandates reduced Ohios spread similar to that of a state with a 1/4 of Ohio's population density. Their measures greatly "reduced spread". That argument completely falls apart when you add in California that has the same density as Ohio and far more restrictions, yet ended up with a much higher case rate per 100k residents. The reality is, and the data shows, that all of those restrictions and masks do very little in preventing spread.