Absolutely, and we are struggling with the exact same problem here.
One of the challenges is that for reasons we don't yet fully understand, it hits different places at different times. It's easy for the areas in the United States that locked down earlier, that locked down before they had a raging crisis, to then look at that and, rather than think they dodged a bullet, think they were bulletproof.
Some of the states that have now reopened, in my view too early and too recklessly, are paying a real penalty for that. Arizona is about to have its hospitals overwhelmed, as are parts of Texas, and I think Florida is not far behind. The reason was that they assumed there was some difference inherent in their states that meant they were not going to face the same sort of situation that New York faced eventually, or that this problem was unique to New York.
I think there are absolutely differences and there are gradations, but the fundamental thing we know is that if you give this virus oxygen, it will burn you down. If you do not have some way of controlling it....
You can't sustain a lockdown forever, and you shouldn't need to. I think what we see from South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan and some of the better performers in East Asia is that if you have good testing, tracing and strong public health measures and you're following science, you don't need these long-term, very crushing lockdowns, but you have to pass the baton to something if you're not going to keep the social distancing measures in place. If you lift social distancing without having the other measures in place, as much of the U.S. is doing, that's disaster.