Question: On Monday, Politico published excerpts of an interview with Harvard economist, James Stock, who argues that a second national lockdown would be a bad idea. What do you think about these Harvard professor’s views on the need for another lockdown?

Answer: This is an important debate going on in the country (and around the world) about whether a second lockdown is required. I’m going to describe both sides of the argument and then tell you where I land, for what it’s worth.

Argument A: We Need a Second Lockdown

A number of health professionals have been calling for a second national lockdown to contain the virus. Perhaps the largest push has been through the collective effort of U.S. PIRG through an open letter to President Trump, which has been signed by >1,000 health professionals. The letter was released on 29 July. The basic argument is:

1. Background: Our original national lockdown prevented millions of cases and saved hundreds of thousands of lives. For example, this article published in Nature shows that lockdown resulted in 4.8 million fewer cases in the US as of 6 April.
2. Problem statement: Lockdown was lifted too quickly in favor of reopening, and was done so before necessary public health infrastructure and policies were in place to further contain viral spread. We cannot restore the economy until we contain the virus. Without national mask mandates and with numerous states allowing for non-essential activities that carry greater risk (like drinking at indoor bars), the country is on track to suffer an estimated 300,000 deaths by the start of December.
3. Solution: If we are going to get COVID-19 under control and thereby get our economy going, we must have a stringent national lockdown. As described by U.S. PIRG, this means that non-essential businesses should be closed with restaurant service limited to take-out. People should stay home, going out only to get food and medicine or to exercise and get fresh air. Masks should be mandatory in all situations, indoors and outdoors, where we interact with others. And non-essential interstate travel should be barred. Reopening should then only be done in the context where we have 1) Enough testing; 2) Sufficient contact tracing; 3) Sufficient personal protective equipment (Figure 1).

Argument B: Shutdown Is Neither Necessary Nor Desirable

As described in the Politico article you cite as well as this Brookings article, “Policies for a Second Wave,” here the basic argument is:

1. Background: Economic shutdown, combined with non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs, e.g. mask wearing, keeping 6-feet distance, etc.) did lead to reductions in cases, deaths, and the viral reproductive rate. However, the national lockdown also triggered the sharpest and deepest recession since the Great Depression.
2. Problem statement: National lockdown would bring increased economic misery. It would also mean that the government has learned nothing over the last six months and is not taking responsibility for effective action (e.g. shutdown allows the government to be “off the hook” for mandating masks, providing millions of dollars to fund testing, and the like). We cannot restore the economy until we contain the virus, however “there is strong evidence that much of the decline in economic activity was the result of self-protective behavior by individuals, not government shutdown orders, so simply reversing those orders will not by itself revive the economy.”
3. Solution: A second wave can be prevented or reversed “through the adoption of non-economic NPIs, without needing to close either schools or the economy.” As described by David Baquaee, James Stock and colleagues in this conference paper, “non-economic non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as reintroducing restrictions on social and recreational gatherings, stressing wearing masks and personal distancing, increasing testing and quarantine, and enhancing protections for the elderly and the most vulnerable, together can mitigate a second wave while leaving room for an economic recovery.” Here the virus is contained and lives are saved, and businesses remain open under CDC guidelines AND with strict precautions carried out outside of work, including widespread masking, testing, isolation, social distancing, enhanced protections for the elderly, and prohibitions on high-contact economic activity (like theaters, sporting events, bars).

Where I Stand

What I hope you’ll see after reading these descriptions is that the two arguments actually aren’t all that different. Both call for widespread masking, testing, contact tracing, social distancing, and the like. Argument A positions that the virus is too out of control for testing, contact tracing, and isolation to work, thereby requiring a second lockdown. Argument B positions that a second lockdown would give too much political cover for effective policies — including masking, testing, contact tracing — to be promoted, funded, and implemented. Moreover, a second lockdown would only bring more economic misery. Writing this post today (which means that my prerogative might change next week or next month or next year), I lean to Argument B. We squandered so much of time that the original national lockdown gave us (see Q&A of 6/25, Q&A of 4/19, and Q&A of 3/24); I don’t think that a second national lockdown would have a different result. That said, I absolutely agree with both arguments that we need enough testing, contact tracing, support for isolation, personal protective equipment, as well as mask mandates and implementation of strict precautions in businesses and schools, enhanced protections for high-risk populations (like older people) and prohibitions on high-contact economic activities. These needs are costly and aren’t fun, but they are necessary and they will allow us to curb the virus so that we can prevent infections, save lives, restore our economy, and ultimately get back to all the people and activities we love.

Figure 1. Excerpt from U.S. PIRG Open Letter (here)