The Left continues to attack classical liberalism (although they now call it "neoliberalism") precisely because it's the liberal ideology that continues to provide the most consistent opposition to the leftist program. If liberalism had failed, the Left wouldn't still be attacking it.
Most of the world's regimes enthusiastically destroyed their economies and consigned millions to destitution (and a rising tide of resulting health problems) in pursuit of a trendy and unproven theory. There's still not evidence that the lockdowns worked.
Over the years a chorus of critics has alleged that the textbook view of how a central banks buys government debt in "open market operations" is backwards. They argue that in reality commercial banks take the lead in making loans without regard to their reserves.
There is a reason to panic. But the panic should be over how governments—who know so very little about the virus that they have decided warrants destroying the global economy—will create many new threats to health and well-being through their policies.
Noah Smith's Bloomberg column praises Milton Friedman's "plucking model" of recessions, where the severity of a bust is connected to the strength of the following recovery. Does this refute Mises' BOOM-BUST theory?