On March 16, 2020, six Bay Area counties acted with decisiveness and unity, ordering residents to shelter in place in an effort to curb the spread of the novel coronavirus, which by that point had caused nearly 300 cases of COVID-19 and five deaths.

It was a bold move at a time when few leaders had the courage and foresight to take such aggressive action. Unfortunately, in the months that followed, political pressure pushed local and state leaders into a rushed reopening process that led us to where we are today.

Now, more than a year, 420,000 cases and nearly 6,000 deaths later, Bay Area leaders once again have a choice: Continue the course of half-measures and a reopening strategy based on arbitrary metrics that will lead to more COVID-19 cases and deaths, or reopen safely in just a matter of weeks by pursuing a “zero COVID” approach.

To be clear, things are looking up in the Bay Area and across California: Vaccination rates are rising and case rates are dropping. But, as we saw last summer, this progress can vanish quickly. The increase in potentially more-contagious, vaccine-resistant variants is all the more reason for Bay Area public health leaders to pursue a more-decisive approach that both minimizes the opportunity for further virus mutations and accelerates a return to something much more like pre-pandemic life.

It’s happening in other parts of the world. In Taiwan and Australia, crowds are safely returning to live, in-person sports matches and concerts, restaurants are at full capacity, and students are back in classrooms every day.

While Bay Area parents have kids in classrooms just a few hours a week, other countries are living again. How can this be? It’s because these countries didn’t just flatten the curve through half measures, they crushed it through strict containment. The Bay Area can too, even if the state does not.

Here’s what going “zero COVID” would look like in the Bay Area:

First, the entire region would implement a strict lockdown that would stop all non-essential travel and only allow residents to leave their homes for essentials. It would also require isolation facilities for mild and moderate cases, mask wearing and enforcement, and frequent testing.

After a 14-day strict lockdown, areas with zero community transmission would begin to reopen, creating what are known as “green zones.” People from one “green zone” could travel to another, but they couldn’t travel to “red zones,” where community transmission persists.

For example, if San Francisco and Alameda counties became “green zones,” but San Mateo remained a “red zone,” residents of San Francisco and Oakland could travel between those two cities for non-essential reasons, but non-essential travel to and from San Mateo would remain prohibited.

Such restrictions are among the most challenging aspects of a “zero COVID” approach – but they are critical to stopping community spread, which has the additional benefit of reducing opportunities for further mutations of the virus. Community-by-community “green zones” would reopen over a few more weeks, building upon one another until the entire Bay Area is green.

Yes, it seems counterintuitive for another lockdown when hope is on the horizon. But as long as there’s a curve, this virus will have the upper hand. On the other hand, containment works when done right and can be achieved in just a matter of weeks. The Bay Area can pioneer “zero COVID” in California and be the leader that shows the state – even the nation – how quickly we can finally beat COVID-19.

Yaneer Bar-Yam is a physicist and pandemic expert. He co-founded the COVID Action Group, a nonpartisan network of scientists, researchers and communicators backed by the Federation of American Scientists.