As much as we'd like it to be, this isn't over. Not the health issue of beating coronavirus, or dealing with the economic fallout.
As we continue to get our heads around these momentous events, there's a question being directly asked or hovering in the background of public debates right now.
Was New Zealand's lockdown an overreaction?
A vocal minority online and in print are saying yes, it was too much. The economic consequences are going to be too great.
Or as Simon Bridges clumsily put it, "My worry is that the medicine is worse than the cure." Which doesn't make sense, but you get what he was trying to say.
There's obviously political point-scoring going on. Which is understandable, some people are opposed to the current government, no matter what they do.
If we had a weekly death count in the hundreds under a lesser lockdown regime, the Government would be getting hammered for allowing such a tragedy. Either way they cop it.
It's also easy to question decisions with the benefit of hindsight. A strategy often used to discredit the people who had to make a decision at the time.
It's perverse, however, to say now, after the level 4 lockdown has been successful in halting rapid community transmission, that we didn't need to do it. Hopefully, most people can see through that twisted logic.
On firmer ground, some on social media are questioning whether New Zealand was ever in danger of between 30,000 and 60,000 people dying, as different models used by the Government were saying. Perhaps it was going to be more like 10,000.
We'll never know. It's pointless to argue over what might have been and then weigh those predicted deaths against jobs lost.
We have to accept that back in mid-March, a decision had to be made, based on what was known and unknown.
And the crucial context for that decision, I believe, was what was happening in Italy. Over 600 people a day were dying, including health workers.
Coronavirus looked very, very dangerous. That's what most New Zealanders following events overseas were thinking.
The majority of us were ready to go into lockdown. We knew there would be a cost, but we could see what needed to be done.
This is what critics of the Government, and those with a deep aversion to the Prime Minister, are missing. New Zealanders, overwhelmingly, wanted this response.
When Simon Bridges, for instance, criticises the Government, he's in effect criticising us. Hence the backlash.
It was never Jacinda's lockdown. It was ours. It's become a source of national pride.
The Colmar Brunton poll (conducted 20-21 April) showed 87 per cent support for the lockdown. Those are incredible numbers.
Jacinda and her government colleagues haven't got everything right. And they could still get many things wrong before the election and see the support they've gained dissipate.
But, again, what happens next depends a lot on us. How many of us have been changed by lockdown and the fight against coronavirus? What do we now want?
Are we going to take the mantra "We're all in this together" to heart, and demand it in other aspects of New Zealand life?
There are adverse health effects of a lasting economic depression, undoubtedly. Compounded if we allow people to fall through the cracks.
On the flip side, there are health benefits to a society that unites and works together to achieve worthy goals.
We've proven we can do that and feel united in a way that New Zealand hasn't for a long time. I'm up for more of that medicine.
He waka eke noa.
• Northern Advocate columnist Vaughan Gunson writes about life and politics.