The COVID-19 pandemic

[danbrotherston]

Yes, we aren't done yet, this is why we should lock down again now that we are seeing surging case numbers. But the end is in sight.

If you want to save as many lives as possible than we must have a lockdown now, and we must continue to lock down every time cases increase until we have a vaccine broadly available mid next year.

I agree with this absolutely. I dont consider this lockdown at all, but I dont think our lockdown before was strict enough either. 
 
I think the most effective option is total lockdown, till there is no community transmission, like some countries have done. Continue with that method during a resurgence of infections, until there is viable and consistent treatment

I agree the lockdown now, is....well...not a lockdown. Even the new limits amount to approximately nothing [1]. I do think the original lockdown was fairly strong, and the case numbers show that it was largely effective at controlling the virus, eliminating community spread is a great goal, but fairly difficult to achieve...we were close though, if the lockdown had continued, we may have gotten there.

The problem with a stronger lockdown is people don't obey, we can sanction and shutdown businesses pretty effectively, but unlike say, China, we lack the resources and will to literally weld doors shut on houses to lock people inside. We also lack the infrastructure to deliver food and supplies during such a lockdown. And for that matter, the very need to do so, makes a total shutdown impossible, people would starve if they aren't people still running the food supply.

In our case, the issue is determing which public policies will be most effective in modifying behaviour in the context of our society. Yes, if everyone went and sat in their rooms for two weeks, we'd be out of this in short order, but that isn't going to happen, nobody has that level of control over people in this country. So, a balance must be struck, the right policies to achieve the most change to behaviour. Now maybe our government could have implemented some things more strongly, but I don't know.

And I think it is fine that it was not a total lockdown...we saw very low rates of transmission for several (admittedly summer) months. If we kept reliably increasing the lockdown in response to rising numbers, we would be able to control this for the 6-10 months before we have a vaccine start to be available.

It's also the case that as we learn more about the virus, and ramp up our testing and data, we can tailor the lockdowns more precisely. We didn't know at the beginning how big an issue surface transmission was, turns out it was very low, as well, we didn't know how bad indoor spaces were, turns out a big problem, so we can stop wasting time trying to decontaminate every single surface, and instead work on improving ventilation and allowing more activity to take place outside.

That being said, I don't think that's happening right now, the concern is not peoples behaviour, but the choice to continue operating businesses even though we know it will kill people. Cases are rising as fast as they did before, and our government is choosing not to respond. I saw many quotes today about the next wave being worse, and I agree, it's turning out that way, but it was a choice we made...or our government made on our behalf.

[1] It's worth noting that our economy has not significantly rebounded as a result of the lifting of the lockdown, as you noted, even without the lockdown we'd have economic decline, as people choose not to go out...and frankly without a lockdown the economic harm can be even greater, because while most won't go out, enough will that the virus will spread and cause disease which also harms the economy. There isn't a lot of evidence that the economic decline is any worse with a lockdown...and historical studies of the 1918 pandemic suggest that cities which locked down more strongly, saw less decline.