There is no way to know whether the coronavirus pandemic will change with the seasons. But unlike the seasons, we can control the course of the pandemic. Much depends on what we do and how quickly we act. Right now, people wonder if we’ve gone too far, and when we can go out again. This is understandable – Covid-19 is an unprecedented pandemic, the instructions to stay home are unfamiliar, and, for most Indians, the risk of serious illness is very low.

We will likely see arbitrary suggestions for when social and economic activity can resume, not informed by thoughtful analysis or public health expertise. There is a way to think through both how and when to start reopening our economy and society, and it’s important that we get this right.

This is not a choice between health and economics. It’s about optimizing the public health response to save lives while minimizing economic harm. Economic harm isn’t just about profits: it’s about workers being able to afford essential goods, life-saving products staying on the market, and safeguarding the well-being of everyone. And restrictions don’t have only economic and social harms. They also harm patients who go without treatment for non-coronavirus-related conditions. There’s only one way to get the decisions right on the how and the when: base action on the best data available and be transparent about how choices are being made.

In terms of the “how,” the key is to avoid opening the floodgates of infection and overwhelming the health care system. We need to cautiously turn the faucet on everyday activities. Let’s be frank. We were not a healthy society even before the pandemic. In India, Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are estimated to account for more than 60% of all deaths. And although we hope infection will protect against a second infection, we don’t know that it will. Medically vulnerable people—including everyone over 65, anyone with heart, kidney, or lung disease, and people whose immune systems are not intact, whether from infection, cancer treatment, or diabetes—will need to continue to shelter in place. If there is a large spike in cases, the faucet must be tightened again, before so many people become ill that cases overwhelm health care facilities and contacts can’t be tracked.

The question of “when” it will be safe to go out again is the flip side of the question of when social distancing needs to start. Any time there are multiple cases for which the source case cannot be identified in a community, indicating that infection is spreading widely, people need to shelter in place. Unless they do so, there will be explosive spread as occurred in Wuhan, in Italy, and now in New York City.

One thing that has been far too poorly understood is that there are two separate benefits of sheltering in place. The first benefit is to reduce – but not end – transmission. Wishful thinking that everyone can hide in a hole for 2 weeks and transmission will stop is just that: wishful thinking. Spread in health care facilities, homes, and other activities will all keep the embers burning and flaring. The second benefit of sheltering is to buy time to make our health care and public health systems stronger – and the quicker we do this, the faster we can reopen for business and life. This includes protecting and preparing the workers who are the heart of these systems.

Our health care system needs to be ready to safely treat large numbers of patients who are mildly ill, provide safe and effective intensive care for those who will die without it, and maintain care for the millions of patients who need to continue to be treated for conditions, such as hypertension and diabetes, that could otherwise kill them. The public health system needs to be able to do widespread testing and immediate and effective contact tracing and isolation of all patients, and to quarantine all contacts.

We need faster turnaround times for testing. The focus on high-throughput testing has been misguided. Throughput is not what matters most, turnaround time is. Test results are needed in hours so that patients can be managed appropriately. This will be possible with rapid turnaround tests including those provided by hospitals that develop tests locally; tests done locally with systems from private diagnostic companies; and, if accuracy of at least positive results can be assured, a point-of-care test that can be used at the bedside with results in minutes.

The answer to the “When is it safe to come out again” question, then, depends on how well we use the time to prepare our health care and public health systems for a possible surge in cases when activity resumes. Keep in mind that months into the outbreak, China is only now reopening much of its economy.

What gets re-started first should depend on what will have the biggest benefit for society. We urgently need to understand whether children spread this infection. If they don’t commonly spread it, then schools may be able to reopen, carefully. This doesn’t mean simply re-opening as before but enabling staff and students who are medically vulnerable to participate by distance. Day care facilities are essential so parents can work, at home or in the workplace. Infrastructure projects, which are important to long-term economic progress as well as short-term employment, are a likely priority. Businesses that can either open with distancing – no meetings, 3-6 feet between people, temperature checks and mandatory hand sanitizer at the door, immediate closure if a case is found – or that are particularly important to a community or society should open before others. Partial reopening to increase productivity, with a small number of staff commuting safely and working separate hours or in separate locations, can also start early.

Decisions about how and when to reopen will need to be made based on information about how the virus is spreading and how prepared the health care and public health systems are – and this will vary by community. One size will not fit all. But one approach, based on data and evidence-driven principles, will. And make no mistake: it’s not just the economy that will take a hit if we get this wrong. Reopening floodgates instead of a faucet can overwhelm health care facilities, killing doctors, nurses, patients, and others, and would greatly prolong the need to shutter our economy.

Yes, we need to balance health and economics. But no, they don’t have to be in conflict. If we base our decisions on data and put science in the driver’s seat, we can balance competing societal interests, preserve our health care system, reopen as soon and safely as possible, and get through this together.