Some people seem to be talking about what I think of as a "hokey cokey" lockdown --- once you get below a certain rate of new cases you relax the rules, and then when^h^h^h^hif the rate goes back up above a certain number, you tighten up again. (Some people use the phrase "hammer and dance" for this, but I don't think the author of the original article with that title
really argued for a yo-yo approach.)
This seems to me like a terrible idea. First, people would be very confused about what is in effect at any given time (and if you announce the changes a week in advance, people will game them to f.ck in many different ways). Second, it will be terrible for business. You can't spend the week or so that would be needed to reopen a restaurant from scratch only to have to throw all that away ten days later. There would be a huge burden on suppliers, staff, and even the administrative systems needed to ensure that people get paid when they're furloughed but not when they're working.
(I don't have a better idea --- I don't think the universe owes us a solution --- but I just can't see the hokey-cokey working. After the first or second U-turn, people would seriously start to lose confidence in the government's authority --- in whichever country tried it.)