Quarantine measures and the crises triggering them are never neutral in the sense that a return to the past is impossible. These measures are also a signal of other things like systemic risks and weaknesses. A period of quarantine is also a thing in and by itself. What happens after quarantine is thus shaped both by the state of the social-ecological system preceding quarantine and by what happened during quarantine. The selectivities introduced during quarantine span discursive, institutional and material realms. Old discourses can return with a new meaning. Social and economic relations can reappear seemingly unchanged, they can be more visibly altered and they can be dismantled. Ideologies, however, to be understood here as master discourses, read problems and solutions in their own way and do not necessarily come closer to each other or disappear. All this, offers food for thought regarding the possibilities and limits of resilience and transition. We argue that the current COVID- 19 pandemic casts doubt on the generic applicability of theories of resilience and transition, yet also sheds a new light on the value of both. We propose the concept of reinvention to describe what is happening and what could happen in a more coordinated fashion. We argue that the current crisis reveals mechanisms in systems dynamics that point at the existence of multiple pathways after dramatic system shocks. Some shocks and their system- specific responses (such as a particular kind of quarantine) are more amenable to resilience strategies afterwards, while others require a path of radical transition. They might also both be needed: a rather stark transition now might ensure future resilience. While the outline of the system after transition is not clear, some desirable features are clear as are the risks and damages of the current system. Also clear is the argument for transitional governance, a temporary governance system (beyond quarantine) which can enable the construction of new long term perspectives in governance and new governance tools meant to reduce chances of a crisis like this one reoccuring.

从不可能回到过去的意义上说，隔离措施及其引发的危机从来都不是中立的。这些措施也预示着其他事情，例如系统性风险和弱点。隔离本身也是一个问题。因此，检疫后发生的情况受检疫前社会生态系统的状态和检疫期间发生的情况的影响。隔离期间引入的选择性涵盖了话语，制度和物质领域。旧的话语可能会以新的意义返回。社会和经济关系似乎可以重新出现，看起来似乎没有变化，可以更明显地改变，也可以拆除。但是，意识形态在这里应理解为主要论述，以自己的方式阅读问题和解决方案，不一定彼此接近或消失。所有这些，为弹性和过渡的可能性和局限性提供了思考的机会。我们认为，当前的COVID-19大流行使人们对复原力和过渡理论的普遍适用性产生怀疑，但同时也为两者的价值提供了新的思路。我们提出重塑的概念，以更协调的方式描述正在发生的事情和可能发生的事情。我们认为，当前的危机揭示了系统动力学中的机制，这些机制指出了剧烈的系统冲击后存在多种途径。某些冲击及其特定于系统的响应（例如，特定类型的隔离）在以后更适合弹性策略，而另一些冲击则需要彻底过渡的路径。它们也可能都需要：现在进行相当明显的过渡可以确保将来的恢复能力。虽然过渡后的系统概述不明确，但一些合意的功能以及当前系统的风险和损害也很明确。过渡治理的论点也很清楚，过渡治理是一种临时的治理体系（超越隔离），它可以在治理方面建立新的长期观点，并采用新的治理工具来减少此类危机再次发生的可能性。