I'm looking at a bunch of data and I think
@Ola was correct that there's a natural progression to this. The outbreaks go up and come down no matter what the reaction of the region is. And they seem to be subsiding globally, in general.
If you compare New York and Florida, a state in shutdown vs a state where comparatively little was done, both are going down. The difference is that Florida is floating down whereas New York is shooting down.
Exactly the same for Italy vs Sweden, respectively.
This tells me that social distancing does not prevent the infection or actively cause it to come down. It's an accelerant -- you come down quicker.
A quicker decline in a state of massive outbreak does save lives and New York was at a point where we couldn't afford a gradual decline, so I understand why we did it. But it also leads me to the conclusion, if there are subsequent waves of this thing still to come, that complete shutdown may not be necessary if you're smart.
Also the caveat here is that you don't just go back to normal. Gatherings of thousands and other obvious dangers need to be avoided until this is definitively over.
The question we need to answer for a potential second wave is this: how do we not get to the point where a shutdown is required to begin with?