Already planning which naughty takeaway you'll have after Cabinet decides whether to ease down to level 3 next week? It might pay to get the mince out of the freezer instead.
Out of all the words Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has uttered since Covid-19 began, one word indicates it is more likely the full lockdown could well be extended.
That word is "elimination".
It was two weeks ago that Ardern first stated eliminating the virus in New Zealand was now the goal.
It was an ambitious target – the vast majority of world leaders have opted for the lower threshold of containing the spread of the virus until a vaccine can be developed. There are those who question whether it is even possible.
If it works, it will be a triumph for New Zealand. It will eventually allow at least domestic activity to resume with far fewer restrictions in place than in many other countries.
But it is also now a stake in the ground for Ardern.
Ardern may well come to regret voicing that target out loud. Targets come to be seen as measures by which people are judged as having triumphed or failed.
It also allows for much less flexibility in decision making – and casts economic considerations way down the pecking order in that decision making.
She may well find she has backed herself into a corner by setting that target – and it is not one she can back down from easily.
Since then, there has been international media coverage of New Zealand's approach, including the elimination target. The headlines have included the dramatic Washington Post's "New Zealand isn't just flattening the curve, it's squashing it".
All of this will be weighing on Ardern's mind as she heads into next Monday's Cabinet meeting to decide whether it is time to move to level 3.
One person's advice will be more critical to that decision than any other's: Director-general of health Ashley Bloomfield.
It is Bloomfield Ardern will take the lead from in deciding whether New Zealand can safely move to level 3.
Bloomfield has set out four criteria to get the green light to level 3: very low risk of community transmission, border controls to prevent new infection, strong tracing and testing capacity, and supplies for and capacity in the health system.
Of those, the biggest obstacles will be risk of community transmission, and the ability to undertake swift contact tracing if a new case pops up.
Contact tracing would need to be fast, and comprehensive. People could move around more at level 3. There are ways of tracking people's movements through technology, but one has not been settled on yet and there are privacy issues.
Thus far, Ardern has suggested people keep a written log of their movements every day in case it is needed.
Then there is the testing, and community transmission risk.
Signs are encouraging – the number of new cases each day is low. The number of cases for which the source is unknown is very low.
But it was only from Thursday that the Minister of Health sent testing units out to do random testing in areas where community transmission was a risk: Queenstown, across the Waikato, Canterbury.
The question will be whether that is enough to be certain by Monday.
Bloomfield will not be the only guide.
None of the criteria Bloomfield is using takes account of the economic impact. That is the political decision, not the health decision.
There will be those in Cabinet agitating for the brakes to be eased to allow the economy to start churning again.
They include NZ First ministers Winston Peters and Shane Jones who have pushed for construction and forestry to get back into action. Some Labour ministers will also think the time has come.
It will be a cost-benefit calculation: are the economic benefits of level 3 sufficiently greater to warrant moving now, even if there remains some risk? Would an extra fortnight really make a big difference?
This is not helped by those casting envious eyes at Australia, which thus far has achieved similar results in controlling Covid-19 to New Zealand with far fewer restrictions.
Ardern has been able to justify the more stringent lockdown by pointing to the elimination goal: Australia is focusing on containment.
Ardern will err on the side of caution. She is by nature cautious.
She will be wary of people going a bit crazy at the comparative freedoms of level 3. It is very similar to level 4, but its boundaries are more blurred.
People have more choices – about their bubbles, their activities. Choices can be dangerous.
Ardern has also made it clear she does not want level 3 to be prolonged.
Level 3 is intended very much as a stage to stress-test New Zealand to see if elimination has worked.
If it holds, Ardern wants to be able to move to level 2 as quickly as possible – possibly after just two weeks. Level 3 is simply a stepping stone.
In effect, that means level 3 will not come until Ardern thinks we are very close to being able to move to level 2.
All of that speaks to a bit longer in full lockdown, to remove the doubt.
The final opinion Ardern will take into account is public opinion.
Ardern will not find it hard to persuade New Zealanders that staying at level 4 for another two weeks or so is a good idea.
Many people are already convinced extending the lockdown is a good thing, maybe even necessary.
Many businesses will also not baulk at a longer level 4 lockdown – especially those which cannot open at level 3 such as restaurants, pubs and retail stores for whom online sales are not possible or viable.
The sooner the lockdown works as intended, the sooner things get to the point when those businesses can open again.
But if things go awry at level 3, and we end up back at level 4, it merely prolongs the time before that can happen.
The biggest question in Ardern's head will be, "Am I certain enough that we will not end up back at level 4?"
Better safe than sorry appears to be the overriding public sentiment.
That is exactly what Ardern needs people to be thinking.