I can’t speak for other states, but as soon as hospital admissions had been going down for two weeks, NJ started relaxing. We’re doing it slowly, so we can see whether the problem starts coming back. But I don’t think there’s been any moving of goalposts.
If the idea was to flatten the curve as originally suggested the admission rate wouldn't start to decline for an extended period. If the whole idea is to take something that's essentially a bell curve and stretch it out (i.e. not reducing the hospitalisation total, just slowing the flow to make it manageable) then by the nature of the process it makes it very slow.
I forget the precise details but PA's governor imposed metrics that required very low rates of new cases, and then partially reopened some counties while requiring other counties with objectively better figures to stay closed.
there was actually a second purpose of the original exercise. It was to get us to a position where further cases could be treated by the kind of contact tracing that is typically done for dangerous infections. I think most states are about ready for that, which is why they’ve all started backing off restrictions.
The problem with contact tracing this one, at least from what we are being told, seems to be that you can be totally asymptomatic while still being highly contagious. If you don't know you are infected, you never show any symptoms and therefore never even think of the possibility that you might be infected, how would you get into a contact tracing system at all? How would anyone even know they needed to consider who you might have been in contact with?
Another issue is with the obsession over this mysterious figure of six feet. Theoretically speaking, if you could get something like a phone app that everybody agreed to use (and for now let's ignore the glaring problems with privacy etc) and that could tell who you had been close to for any length of time, the data it produces is still of very limited use. Taking hypothetical cases to make the point, if you stood back-to-back outdoors with someone who was not only infected but one of the "superemitters" who sprays more saliva than is usual and stayed touching them back-to-back for an hour before going your separate ways the chances are you'd be perfectly safe. On the flipside the infected person with powerful lungs who stayed more than six feet away but who coughed near a fan that blew the moisture droplets into your face could infect you even though there isn't a form of contact tracing out there that would register you'd been "in contact" with them.
I looked at stories from March 16, which is when Trump recommended distancing and N.Y. and NJ acted.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/16/tru...crisis-could-stretch-into-july-or-august.html. Note that Trump said the battle was going to go into July and August, though the initial two week recommendations wouldn’t necessarily be extended that long.
It's probably safe to say a global pandemic will go on for many months, the question isn't so much how long the virus will last but how long specific phases of trying to contain/manage/fight the virus will last.
Apparently now Dr Fauci is saying that an extended lockdown could do "irreparable damage" (
https://www.businessinsider.com/anthony-fauci-irreparable-damage-stay-at-home-too-long-2020-5). I'd have thought that much was obvious from weeks ago. Even if the lockdowns had been lifted a month ago the damage is still huge, simply because a precedent has been set that state governors may simply shut down businesses on a whim and order moratoriums on rent without compensation to those affected.
