When will COVID-19 restrictions be lifted?

[CGSwans]

{Note from mods - this thread split from here: Long-term effects of COVID-19 economic downturn on zoos}

Thank you,
However--and going back to my earlier view of taking things a day at a time--NY's statistics have all plateaued, with all significant numbers starting to decrease earlier than I ever thought they would. We just have to wait and see, one day at a time.

As canvassed above though, these decreases are a function of the level of social distancing as it existed two weeks ago. Reduce the level of social distancing before the virus is contained, and the numbers will go back up. This is true even in the likely event that distancing is only partially wound back: it is only a question of degree.

One thing that concerns me is that there seems to be a tacit assumption that once numbers have 'peaked' they cannot spike up again. This is simply not so. To take the NY metro area as an example, there are currently around 280,000 confirmed cases from a population of 21 million people. Even if we assume that there is a very large number of unknown cases - 10 unknown for every diagnosed case, for instance - we are still talking about 85% of area residents being susceptible to the disease. That's about as many people as live in the Netherlands.

 

[AmbikaFan]

As canvassed above though, these decreases are a function of the level of social distancing as it existed two weeks ago. Reduce the level of social distancing before the virus is contained, and the numbers will go back up. This is true even in the likely event that distancing is only partially wound back: it is only a question of degree.

One thing that concerns me is that there seems to be a tacit assumption that once numbers have 'peaked' they cannot spike up again. This is simply not so. To take the NY metro area as an example, there are currently around 280,000 confirmed cases from a population of 21 million people. Even if we assume that there is a very large number of unknown cases - 10 unknown for every diagnosed case, for instance - we are still talking about 85% of area residents being susceptible to the disease. That's about as many people as live in the Netherlands.

I don't disagree with anything you say. In fact, New Jersey is even worse. With only 9 million people, our stats show a much higher rate of infection and death than even New York. But even if I didn't happen to think Andrew Cuomo has done an excellent job managing New York's response, lol, neither he nor our governor Phil Murphy are urgently seeking my thoughts. All we can do here is hope that the governors (and not the federal government...) manage the opening as well as they did the closing. Cuomo closed all 89 campuses of the SUNY and CUNY universities on 3/11, and before March was even behind us, we had been told that all of our summer courses would be online too. That meant he anticipated a nearly-six-month closure. That was pretty smart. But he has facts I don't have, updates I don't have, and experience I don't have, so I'm in no position to second-guess him. I'm frankly glad that he's leading the 7-state effort. I'd be VERY surprised if he lifted the lockdown soon or all at one time. My guess is that openings of different kinds of businesses will be stretched out across at least a month, with the first to open, for instance, dentists and other service providers that are currently closed, but essential. During my calamity last week, my dentist was closed like all others; if I hadn't had a remarkable professional who exchanged nearly 200 texts and photos with me over the course of a week, my outcome wouldn't have been nearly as good.

 

[Zooplantman]

One thing that concerns me is that there seems to be a tacit assumption that once numbers have 'peaked' they cannot spike up again. This is simply not so. To take the NY metro area as an example, there are currently around 280,000 confirmed cases from a population of 21 million people. Even if we assume that there is a very large number of unknown cases - 10 unknown for every diagnosed case, for instance - we are still talking about 85% of area residents being susceptible to the disease. That's about as many people as live in the Netherlands.

Precisely.
COVID19 cases are peaking in some locales due to early adoption of social distancing. And with no vaccine and no reliable anti-body test or even reliable info on whether antibodies confer immunity, social distancing is all that is holding that peak back. Here in NYC 800 people die from COVID every day. Re-open businesses and the number will rise.(Check Singapore for how this works)
Whatever happens to the economy and the economic situation of citizens, until there are both policies and technology to re-open society then we haven't peaked, we've merely paused. There is also so much fear that when the social distancing orders are rescinded, many people will continue to social distance and watch the bold ones sicken and die. I cannot imagine everyone running to the nearest zoo.
This thread has been a great revealor of people's greatest fears and hopes over the pandemic.

 

[Maguari]

I'm surprised at a lot of people's optimism about how long populations will bear lockdown. We're not just talking about people who can't work or watch sports or go for a pint, but people who can't see their parents, their children, their partners even, for an unknown amount of time (and at a time of great worry). Not to mention people living with large families in small flats, with no private outdoor space. Or those like myself living completely alone. Even knowing the benefits the thought of 2 minute conversations with cashiers and delivery drivers being the extent of my non-digital human contact for more than a couple of months is pretty terrifying.

There is a time limit on this policy politically, and a point (albeit distant for now) at which enough people will start working their way around it as to make it rather meaningless anyway. We need governments to use the time this has bought to minimise transmission and work out the extra policies needed to allow lockdown to be relaxed it at least a little bit in the medium term with the lowest risk. Masks, tracking apps, testing. If this lets them feed us all a bit of new freedom every few weeks the consent for the remaining restrictions will be much easier to retain, and the mental health (and yes, economic) costs will be minimised.

This is why I think Macron's statement this week was clever. He stuck a lengthy lockdown extension in place, longer than most places have extended in one go, but with specific hope of improvement after that. People are much more likely to comply with restrictions like these if they can see how they will begin to recede. Obviously he's as much at the mercy of events as the rest of us, but I think this was very neatly done.

 

[CGSwans]

I'm surprised at a lot of people's optimism about how long populations will bear lockdown. We're not just talking about people who can't work or watch sports or go for a pint, but people who can't see their parents, their children, their partners even, for an unknown amount of time (and at a time of great worry). Not to mention people living with large families in small flats, with no private outdoor space. Or those like myself living completely alone. Even knowing the benefits the thought of 2 minute conversations with cashiers and delivery drivers being the extent of my non-digital human contact for more than a couple of months is pretty terrifying.

There is a time limit on this policy politically, and a point (albeit distant for now) at which enough people will start working their way around it as to make it rather meaningless anyway. We need governments to use the time this has bought to minimise transmission and work out the extra policies needed to allow lockdown to be relaxed it at least a little bit in the medium term with the lowest risk. Masks, tracking apps, testing. If this lets them feed us all a bit of new freedom every few weeks the consent for the remaining restrictions will be much easier to retain, and the mental health (and yes, economic) costs will be minimised.

This is why I think Macron's statement this week was clever. He stuck a lengthy lockdown extension in place, longer than most places have extended in one go, but with specific hope of improvement after that. People are much more likely to comply with restrictions like these if they can see how they will begin to recede. Obviously he's as much at the mercy of events as the rest of us, but I think this was very neatly done.

Mmm hmm. I don’t *disagree* with you, and believe me that I feel the walls closing in on me in my little one bedroom, third floor apartment-turned-office. But the virus just doesn’t care. It will be waiting for us, and so while you’re right and political pressure might force a reopening, that same pressure will only shut things down again.

 

[Maguari]

Mmm hmm. I don’t *disagree* with you, and believe me that I feel the walls closing in on me in my little one bedroom, third floor apartment-turned-office. But the virus just doesn’t care. It will be waiting for us, and so while you’re right and political pressure might force a reopening, that same pressure will only shut things down again.

I get that, really I do. But the worst thing that could happen is for people to lose faith in the government's rules. At some point they will need to give the start of the suggestion of improvement or some people will start to think along the lines of isolation no longer being a life worth living, so exposure is worth the risk. And that will be completely unmanaged exposure and very difficult to control.

Past a certain point there will have to be a gentle easing, even if it's exceptionally minor, or even if it is quite openly temporary, to keep people on side.

 

[HOMIN96]

I'm surprised at a lot of people's optimism about how long populations will bear lockdown.

If this lockdown taught me something about myself, it is that I am not that introverted as I thought.

But the virus just doesn’t care.

Well, other illnesses don't care too and at some point, there will be more people that died because of COVID restrictions rather than COVID itself.

I get that, really I do. But the worst thing that could happen is for people to lose faith in the government's rules.

Here you can already hear the voices criticizing the government that they are exploiting the emergency to push their agendas. And those will only get louder

I would agree that generally I would expect schools to open first, though that may leave UK schools in an awkward position just due to the timing around school holidays and the fact the exam season has already been officially cancelled.

Given the timing I expect businesses to open first as our experts recommend to keep schools closed to September with exceptions of students in final years of elementary schools, high schools and universities as those need to be solved separately.

 

[amur leopard]

Given the timing I expect businesses to open first as our experts recommend to keep schools closed to September with exceptions of students in final years of elementary schools, high schools and universities as those need to be solved separately.

In the UK there is also the problem of GCSEs which essentially pupils in Years 10 and 11 (around the ages of 15 and 16) were preparing for and in some cases right in the middle of sitting. These exams, just like the A-levels are really quite important over here for some reason.

Here you can already hear the voices criticizing the government that they are exploiting the emergency to push their agendas. And those will only get louder

Well, other illnesses don't care too and at some point, there will be more people that died because of COVID restrictions rather than COVID itself.

That doesn't mean that CGS's point is invalid - we still need to stay home and respect restrictions (or suggestions in the case of the UK), otherwise it just won't go away. If we continue to get impatient after a couple of months, there will be no way of getting rid of it, because the virus is not transient.

If this lockdown taught me something about myself, it is that I am not that introverted as I thought.

Me too funnily enough. I am, of course, missing seeing friends, and is probably even more painful and unwanted for those who have started relationships just before the crisis began.

 

[HOMIN96]

That doesn't mean that CGS's point is invalid

I am not saying it is invalid, but it is losing its value over time

 

[amur leopard]

I am not saying it is invalid, but it is losing its value over time

Why? I recognise that a few people may die because of the lockdown, but nowhere near as many as would is the lockdown were to be relaxed or entirely abandoned. In fact, I think it is more valuable over time as more and more people start to rebel and speak out against the lockdown.

 

[CGSwans]

Shrugs. I feel like we’re on the point of going around in circles, but your basic premise is wrong. We can’t go back to normal when going back to normal means the case load increases. It’s simply not possible. What do you think is going to happen when people start to die in their thousands again?

It’s one thing to say that these restrictions aren’t sustainable, but there is simply no alternative. This thing is going to run its course until we either control the spread or develop a vaccine. Denial of that basic, unwanted truth will make this thing go on longer.

 

[taun]

Shrugs. I feel like we’re on the point of going around in circles, but your basic premise is wrong. We can’t go back to normal when going back to normal means the case load increases. It’s simply not possible. What do you think is going to happen when people start to die in their thousands again?

It’s one thing to say that these restrictions aren’t sustainable, but there is simply no alternative. This thing is going to run its course until we either control the spread or develop a vaccine. Denial of that basic, unwanted truth will make this thing go on longer.

I think we all need to get used to a different way of living, prepare for the worset and hope for the best.

I complete agree with you here. we need to try and beat this in the first go. Japan are seeing spikes in case after easing restrictions (even if the numbers are low, but some higher than before the lockdown).

Unfortunitely in times like this the government will rightly look after people first, animals/zoo are secondary concern (whether you believe that is right or wrong).

 

[Maguari]

Just in case of doubt, unless stated otherwise what I've posted in this thread relates to what I think will happen, not necessarily what I think should if we were making the hypothetical perfect response to all this.

 

[lintworm]

It’s one thing to say that these restrictions aren’t sustainable, but there is simply no alternative. This thing is going to run its course until we either control the spread or develop a vaccine. Denial of that basic, unwanted truth will make this thing go on longer.

There is no previous alternative, but that does not mean that alternative options for slightly relaxing lockdowns can't be developed during the time a vaccin is being developed. A country like Taiwan has been quite successful without a complete lockdown. But several things would be necessary for a country to successfully relax a little: like extensive testing on the whole population. Additionally there is increasing evidence that wearing a facemask limits by how much an infected person can spread the disease (though it doesn't really keep you safe from getting it, as almost nobody wears the masks properly). Most countries are not ready for that at all and lack the necessary capacities. It will be interesting how the disease develops in Denmark and Austria, two countries where a few restrictions are being relaxed.

 

[CGSwans]

There is no previous alternative, but that does not mean that alternative options for slightly relaxing lockdowns can't be developed during the time a vaccin is being developed. A country like Taiwan has been quite successful without a complete lockdown. But several things would be necessary for a country to successfully relax a little: like extensive testing on the whole population. Additionally there is increasing evidence that wearing a facemask limits by how much an infected person can spread the disease (though it doesn't really keep you safe from getting it, as almost nobody wears the masks properly). Most countries are not ready for that at all and lack the necessary capacities. It will be interesting how the disease develops in Denmark and Austria, two countries where a few restrictions are being relaxed.

Sure, and maybe I haven’t been explicit enough that I do foresee a reduction in the severity of restrictions. It’s just that the timeline for that needs to be determined by the number of active cases, not economic damage or people getting bored.

Until and unless a given jurisdiction can achieve a point where there are very few cases and widespread testing is in place to ensure those cases are actually identified, physical distancing cannot safely be reduced. All that will happen if we do that is that we will need to start over again.

 

[nczoofan]

Sure, and maybe I haven’t been explicit enough that I do foresee a reduction in the severity of restrictions. It’s just that the timeline for that needs to be determined by the number of active cases, not economic damage or people getting bored.

Until and unless a given jurisdiction can achieve a point where there are very few cases and widespread testing is in place to ensure those cases are actually identified, physical distancing cannot safely be reduced. All that will happen if we do that is that we will need to start over again.

The issue for me is that economic damage is being thrown around as if its not linked to people. Many nations could see a 30-40% unemployment rate if this drags out to the fall, which is far in excess of what governments can handle. Countries may face shortages of essential products and many countries may have food shortages. And when this is done the economy won’t snap back. Restaurants won’t come back. Neither will cultural institutions and small businesses. As such people of color in the United States and those of lower income already stand to lose the most. I am about to graduate from college, and I don’t know a single person who has found a job as of yet. I have been told to expect that to be the case until the strict lockdowns end as even public sector hiring has come to a standstill. I am privileged to have a family that can help me out, but many of the other 4 million students in this country graduating soon may not be so lucky.

I agree people need to be quiet about being bored, yet being forced to stay at home is a major issue. In the United States we have seen rises in domestic violence and reports of child abuse. Mental health call centers have seen massive increases in calls. If this prolongs and the economy struggles as expected than suicide rates are expected to skyrocket. So its not as if this is a black and white situation. Lockdowns are not necessarily caring, while economic and mental health concerns are radical ideas. I know i’ll get a lot of pushback for this but to weigh in the economy and those who are most vulnerable to the economic conditions of this lockdown is something we should consider.

Overall my point is that even if strict lockdowns til a vaccine are the best thing to do for controlling Coronavirus, they are not necessarily something that is sustainable. Eventually public pressure from those most affected by the shutdown economy will see to their end, at least in the United States.

 

[CGSwans]

The issue for me is that economic damage is being thrown around as if its not linked to people. Many nations could see a 30-40% unemployment rate if this drags out to the fall, which is far in excess of what governments can handle. Countries may face shortages of essential products and many countries may have food shortages. And when this is done the economy won’t snap back. Restaurants won’t come back. Neither will cultural institutions and small businesses. As such people of color in the United States and those of lower income already stand to lose the most. I am about to graduate from college, and I don’t know a single person who has found a job as of yet. I have been told to expect that to be the case until the strict lockdowns end as even public sector hiring has come to a standstill. I am privileged to have a family that can help me out, but many of the other 4 million students in this country graduating soon may not be so lucky.

I agree people need to be quiet about being bored, yet being forced to stay at home is a major issue. In the United States we have seen rises in domestic violence and reports of child abuse. Mental health call centers have seen massive increases in calls. If this prolongs and the economy struggles as expected than suicide rates are expected to skyrocket. So its not as if this is a black and white situation. Lockdowns are not necessarily caring, while economic and mental health concerns are radical ideas. I know i’ll get a lot of pushback for this but to weigh in the economy and those who are most vulnerable to the economic conditions of this lockdown is something we should consider.

Overall my point is that even if strict lockdowns til a vaccine are the best thing to do for controlling Coronavirus, they are not necessarily something that is sustainable. Eventually public pressure from those most affected by the shutdown economy will see to their end, at least in the United States.

Your points about the economic impacts are all correct, but I don’t know how else to make my point. They are not optional. They don’t stop if we make a decision to accept higher death rate. People will not start going to bars if they think they will die because of it. Anybody who is in a position to not go to work without starving will simply not go to work. The economy is stuffed regardless of what compromises we think we can make with regard to the health outcomes.

People seem to think this is something we can choose to stop. We can’t. The only way this ends is to control the virus. The health crisis and the economic crisis are the same crisis.

edit: I apologise if I am coming across as callous. I’m not, and I desperately want this to end as much as you do. The first time I saw a projection of 25% unemployment in the US my heart skipped a beat, because this is something many people will never recover from. I understand that and it horrifies me, but the solutions people think are solutions will only make it worse.

 

[Maguari]

People will not start going to bars if they think they will die because of it.

Honestly, the bigger problem here (the UK) would be people thinking it's completely safe now to go and do whatever they like because they've re-opened. I don't know if that's cultural differences or what, but I'm quite sure that would be the case. And if they find they've done it too early and there's a spike again it would get to the point of them being forcibly closed again rather than enough people being scared away by rising figures.

 

[Arizona Docent]

I agree with @HOMIN96 @nczoofan @Maguari (assuming I read their thoughts correctly, which I may or may not be). Whether or not an extended (say one year or more) lockdown would be necessary to control the virus, it is simply not feasible. If people start dying from other conditions because they can't get treatment or can't get enough food (malnutrition) or become homeless because they have lost their job, well that is just not an option. As @HOMIN96 stated (which I was going to state myself), there eventually comes a point at which the suffering caused by the reaction to the virus is greater than the suffering caused by the virus itself. I am NOT saying we should go back next week to how things were before, and I am NOT saying we should not try to make permanent changes in society (for starters I think shaking hands when you meet a stranger is a habit that is gone for good). But we need to be realistic about how long a society can function without people working.

I am exceedingly grateful that I have a job that is giving me extra days off with pay and that I live in a state (Arizona) that still lets us go hiking outside. In fact I have been doing more photography lately than ever (alone of course). But my relatives live in California where most hiking trails are closed and they are going stir crazy. It simply cannot last.

 

[Zooplantman]

I agree with @HOMIN96 @nczoofan @Maguari (assuming I read their thoughts correctly, which I may or may not be). Whether or not an extended (say one year or more) lockdown would be necessary to control the virus, it is simply not feasible.

Perhaps we should be less broad in talking about re-starting economies.

• Restaurants, bars/pubs cannot be safe until there is a way for people to be out without masks and hand-sanitizer. That is a big piece of many Western economies and a big chunk of the unemployed.
• Theaters/cinema/concerts will be a challenge to open safely as Westerners will resist wearing masks in such situations (while eating) , the theaters will have to be sanitized after each showing, and 2/3ds of the seats will need to be left empty. As infection rates resume ramping up such establishments would quickly be shut again
  
• Brick-and-mortar shops could be open (as grocery stores are now) with all the restrictions. As many brick-and-mortar stores have been struggling for years already this will further thin that herd.
• Offices may be reopened because employers can place more restrictions on their employees. Of course, many of those same employees have been working from home so it may prove less effort to keep things that way.
• Construction might resume but workers will need to be constantly monitored to maintain safety protocols. It is already a problem that so many workers who should wear PPE resist doing it.
  
• Travel (air travel, rail, hotels) may re-open but will suffer huge losses as they try to maintain any safety protocols and the as-yet-uninfected population resists traveling

We could go on but you see economies will likely partially resume and limp along for some time. New graduates will have a very difficult time finding work (just as their older siblings did ten years ago).
Perhaps care for COVID19 patients will improve enough that we all accept that the price of "normalcy" for the next year is many of us will be so sick for a time that we wish we were dead - but we won't die at the rate we have been.

Here is a timeline for how the USA CDC handled SARS (which doesn't compare to COVID19 really) and the setting of/lifting of restrictions. It is instructive