Some welcomed the measures. They pointed to the alarming rise in cases: 40% up on the previous week. The easing of restrictions, they argued, had gone too far, too fast. It would have been better to have a more comprehensive lockdown.

But many are unconvinced. They claim that politicians who see lockdowns as the answer are misguided, and reimposing restrictions whenever the infection rate rises will only make things worse.

One such person is Professor Carl Heneghan of Oxford University. He says we must accept that the virus is here to stay and strike a balance, living our lives as normally as possible while behaving sensibly to minimise the risks.

A leading sociologist, Professor Robert Dingwall, agrees. He believes that people are already starting to acknowledge that thousands will die of the coronavirus every year, just as thousands die of flu. World leaders, he says, should be brave enough to tell the public that it will be around "for ever and a day", even if a vaccine is developed.

One argument for living with the virus, as opposed to trying to suppress it, is the damage inflicted by lockdowns. According to Professor Mark Woolhouse of Edinburgh University, they blight the economy, endanger children's education and increase mental health problems to the extent that the "cure has been worse than the disease".

Instead of adopting blanket measures, he says, we should focus on protecting the vulnerable. There should be more intensive testing of the elderly, particularly in care homes, but we should also establish a "chain of trust", whereby people are more cautious when they come into contact with those at high risk.

A key question is that of immunity. The usual pattern with coronaviruses has been that people who survive are more resistant to them in future: if the illness does recur, it will be in a milder form. If Covid-19 conforms to this, it should eventually become no more dangerous than flu.

Professor Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University even argues that for this reason we should allow young and healthy people to be exposed to the virus. "This is how we have always managed viruses," she says. "Why is this so different?"

Others, though, are more cautious. They say that to maintain herd immunity from established diseases, such as German measles, 95% of children have to be vaccinated. If a Covid-19 vaccine is released, It is too much to assume that a similar number of young people would sign up for it.

It is also too soon to determine the long-term effects of Covid. All we know is that some people have been suffering from the effects for months. Until we have better data, says Professor Christina Pagel of University College, London, allowing the virus to spread would be irresponsible.

Some say, yes. We should regard Covid as we do the other viruses we have to cope with - such as flu,
AIDSAcute Immune Deficiency Syndrome. It interferes with the immune system, leaving sufferers more vulnerable to common diseases. Around the world, almost 40 million people are believed to be living with the disease. and SARSSevere Acute Respiratory Syndrome, a disease that makes it very difficult to breathe.. Humans are social creatures, and it is an inevitable consequence of our interactive lives that such diseases will spread among us. The best we can hope for is to achieve herd immunity. Lockdowns do more harm than good, particularly to the poorest members of society.

Others insist that we need to take every precaution we can, particularly while Covid is so much of a mystery. Viruses are constantly mutatingChanging. A famous Latin phrase, "mutatis mutandis", meaning "once the necessary changes have been made", is commonly used in law, economics and logic., and can recur in stronger forms as well as weaker ones; one strain of flu can kill far more people than another. No one would suggest trying to live with
EbolaA highly infectious disease causing internal and external bleeding. A vaccine against it has recently been developed.. If science gives us a chance to eradicate Covid, we should not hesitate to take it.