Knowing what you know now, and the obvious reality on the ground that there is zero appetite for a second lockdown - did we lock down too early in parts of the country that had almost no outbreak at the start. Would we have been better off waiting 1 month until it got a little bad, then done a serious lockdown for 2(?) months. Then reopened.
A couple of benefits:
1. Maximize effects of the lockdown - when you locked down early you didn't accomplish anything long term - just delayed the start of major spread. If you lock down a month later - you use the lockdown to diminish that spread and at the end of it you are later in the calendar
2. People take the lockdown more seriously because they know the serious nature and local impact of the virus
3. More infected people by the time you reopen - so some of the community has immunity (not sure how much of a difference this will make if it's only 5% or so)
How about another theory? Should we have 10 day open followed by 5 day lockdown going forward? Or 20 open 10 lockdown? This should slow down the pace of infection as we test extensively during the lockdown and hope we slow the virus with each lockdown.