There’s good reason, though, to believe that most of the economic damage from the lockdowns weren’t due to stay-at-home orders, but because of public fear of the virus. For example, people started avoiding restaurants before lockdowns began in late March. Noah Smith writes in Bloomberg that it might seem strange that lockdowns can be both effective at protecting people from coronavirus and yet not have a big impact on the economy. But it’s definitely not impossible. This suggests that new lockdowns need not be as restrictive as the ones in March to protect the public. This sort of lockdown-lite might achieve the best of both worlds for states and cities experiencing coronavirus spikes. But it also needs to be paired with vigorous testing, contact tracing and isolation of infected people.