I believe the "recovery" being talked about is an economic one, not from the pandemic itself. Which is also still debatable, but there are tentative signs that there has been some uneven economic improvement; we passed a trough in US unemployment.

I'd be very surprised if more lockdowns came. Lockdowns are useful in only 2 situations:

1. there's a new disease that is spreading rapidly through the population and you want to prevent the healthcare system from becoming overwhelmed while you figure out how to best reduce infection spread and provide treatment

2. you have a small number of cases and a short lockdown will bring the total to 0, which will allow you to fully re-open your economy with no restrictions (New Zealand)

The US is never going to be in situation #2, and we know enough about how to manage the disease now that we aren't going to be in situation #1 again. Right now I live in Boulder, and the university is under lockdown because cases have increased 1000% in the past few weeks, but the rest of the city is operating normally (including indoor dining!) with a low rate of disease spread.

> the university is under lockdown because cases have increased 1000% in the past few weeks

This is exactly what I'm anticipating more of— localized lockdowns because politicians and others are unwilling to act on leading indicators and so need to overcompensate when it's obvious that things are past the point where they've already lost control.

Whether the worst is past or not, there is an ongoing economic recovery. Just look at the charts.

If you believe that isn't going to last, you can short the market. Just be aware that you're betting against the capabilities of the Fed's printing press.