Here are my latest thoughts:

1. If according to medical estimates the Coronavirus has so far only infected a small percentage of the overall population around the world, and the infection could therefore come back in a second wave, or even a third one after that, should people be required to lockdown again, or should the vulnerable self-isolate instead (and anyone else who wishes to do so), to the exclusion of those that don't and are prepared to accept the risk (ie individual choice)? This question has now become increasingly important and it is one which world leaders need to come to terms with over the coming months.

2. I cannot see how the economy anywhere can survive a return to another 2/3 month lockdown, let alone a third time after that, and not to mention the impact on the mental health of large parts of the population (which itself has yet to be quantified). Lockdown has already inflicted huge damage to economies and the worst of the economic consequences is yet to come from the recession that will follow from the as yet only lockdown we have had. Whilst a recession will fuel unemployment and poverty, the longer-term impact of all this will include an increase in depression, anxiety, sleeping disorder, alcoholism and drug abuse.

3. If this virus is here to stay (just like with HIV), we would have to learn to live with it under strict social distancing rules; for example, avoiding large public gatherings and imposing restrictions on restaurants, museums and the like. Closing down the entire economy again, and depriving people of their fundamental individual freedoms, would be much more difficult to justify now, or at least I doubt a majority of the population (bottom line - the electorate) will tolerate it.

4. I can see families also being 'divided' on this vexing issue. It could mean each family/ household member having to decide if he/she accepts the risk or not, and look for compromise arrangements that suit everyone; for example, house-sharing among other family members and friends of like-mind or in the same situation.

5. Governments', in turn, will have to consider spreading the economic cost primarily on those that don't self-isolate (other than for work reasons) and incentivise (compensate) people who stay at home (including those who choose to work from home or not to work at all). Those that self-isolate will make negligible use of public services and are reducing the risk (and cost) to the health service, whereas those that prefer to carry on with their lives under the 'new normal' (including travelling/holidays abroad) have to accept the cost distribution in some form.

6. This virus will eventually destroy the livelihoods, wealth and businesses of millions of people. Not just employees but also investors and shareholders (both large and small). I expect questions of compensation will be raised and not just by governments. Could the spread of this virus have been stopped in it's tracks in China? The US certainly appears to be setting itself up for potential claims for Coronavirus compensation against China. But could individual claims also be mounted against national governments? Should countries have kept their borders (including airports) open for as long as they did before lockdown? And where were the intelligence services? Longer term, we may see an erosion of trust for certain institutions of the state.

7. This crisis has focused to my mind that whilst world leaders should obviously take advice from scientific/medical 'experts', decisions as important as 'lockdown' must be taken by politicians (who are ultimately accountable to their electorate) based on political judgment (which includes wider considerations such as the social and economic impact of these decisions), and not allow 'advisers' to effectively take decisions for them on scientific grounds alone, nor based on models with unreliable historical data or assumptions. President Trump is one extreme but he may have called it right on questioning the reopening of the American economy. I also get the impression that the U.K. Government allowed itself to be 'boxed in' too quickly as a result of media pressure.

8. I think what is likely to happen is that gradually the majority of people will come to accept the risk of the virus by trying to lead as 'normal' a life as possible whilst still observing social distancing (even without government restrictions). They will take those decisions at an individual level. I doubt that handshaking or kissing and hugging as a form of social greeting will return any time soon but slowly society will start embracing 'risk' like we have done for thousands of years. None of the things that we take for granted today would have happened without taking risk; in fact, all activities (including those in our normal daily lives such as travelling) carry risk and as a society we have never sought to eliminate risk entirely. When our ape ancestors slowly climbed down from the safety of trees and started walking on the ground, they were exposed to far greater risk but they embraced it and it was the start of human evolution. Whether people are allowed to leave the relative safety of their homes or not as a result of this pandemic, may well turn out to be next evolutionary (or retrograde) step for humanity.

9. I have already said elsewhere that I think that attitudes will change. We may have become too accustomed to the notion that absent a highly remote, huge, global catastrophe, the events we have witnessed over the last months would never happen. Well, it did, and with the benefit of hindsight at least, a pandemic wasn't that remote. This is bound to change mindsets in many ways; the most obvious being how in future we evaluate our own personal situations. Those that were happy to spend what they earned because the good times would surely last for ever and tomorrow will take care of itself, will have to readjust their way of thinking. Conversely, those that over-worked and assumed they would live to enjoy the financial rewards of their labour in the future, will find themselves in an uncertain present, one where their investments or businesses could have little value and where age does matter. Past attitudes could therefore inform the decisions of the future. Many may be far less inclined to view consumerism (spending) with the same glamour as they have done in the past, whilst others will not leave for tomorrow what they can do today. I don't necessarily view this as negative for business/career opportunities either - if financial, health and career 'security' is a thing of the past, the propensity for individuals setting up their own businesses, changing careers or moving jobs should increase.

10. Or perhaps, the age of individualism may truly be upon us.

The views expressed in this article by the author are solely those of the author.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.