That is the biggest question that I think every country is facing right now.
I would say a few things.
First, the lifting of confinement or stay-at-home orders needs to be very cautious, very gradual and driven by data. If some measures are lifted and this does not provoke a spike in the virus, then go to the next phase, wait, make sure it does not cause another spike in the virus. I've worked with other colleagues here in the U.S. in laying out a series of recommended steps for local areas to determine whether they are ready to safely reopen. That is based on a range of things. You need to understand what the virus is doing locally. What is the status of the local outbreak? Have incidents come down to a low absolute level? Is testing positively down to a low absolute level?
Second, is there enough testing and contact-tracing capacity in place to then manage the spread of the virus so that if you see a rise in cases, you can use testing and contact tracing to begin containing that? Is there readiness in the hospital system for a future wave? These are all the measures that need to be in place in order to safely reopen. Then, by all means, have a conditions-based reopening with safety measures in place to contain the virus through other means. What's dangerous is a reopening that is not based on clear conditions and that does not have the tools to contain the virus through other means once the social distancing measures are relaxed.
The last thing I would say is that what we're coming to learn about the virus is that super-spreading events—these events where large numbers of people in an enclosed space become exposed at a single event—are probably the most dangerous and aggressive way the virus spreads. Those are the sorts of things that should be among the last things to reopen only once the virus is almost totally suppressed.