The framing of the question about 'lockdowns' misses the point
This question keeps resurfacing and it's nonsense. There's no need or want to go back to March-style lockdowns anywhere and it's a question that obscures all the economic uncertainty.
Things like parks were closed in March and we absolutely know that's not where the virus is spreading. Aside from the smallest countries, public officials almost everywhere are using regional approaches as well. There's simply no need to close businesses in parts of the country where there are few cases.
Does anyone really think there's a chance of a US-wide lockdown, for instance? It wasn't even locked down in March.
In a practical sense, the term 'lockdown' has no real meaning in the context it's being used. China was literally locking people in their houses and forcibly quarantining people. That's a lockdown. Is closing restaurants a 'lockdown'?
The word has lost all meaning.
The real question is: How much will a resurgence in the virus lead to a drag on economic growth?
Things to consider:
- Restaurant/bar closures
- Recreation facility closures
- Events cancellations
- Non-essential business closures
- Curfews
- School closures
- Hospital capacity restraints
- General public fear
- Pain threshold of various countries
The issue here is at least partly semantics. There's just no alternative to using 'lockdown' to describe government public health measures but some kind of term like 'growth curbs' is a better description.
Beyond this list, what's especially tough to predict is how consumers will respond to a long, depressing winter. Economists have been wrong about so much during the pandemic and the expectation a continued rebound in Q4 and Q1 2021 may be the next casualty.
