It's hard to even figure out what a "10% unemployment rate" means. I recall unemployment rate calculations involved something like "of the people actively looking for work (according to the most recent definition), X percent can't find it". Looking at ostensibly more objective "Labor force participation rate", it seems work decline precipitously at the start of the lockdown and has now, indeed, shot back up by 1/2 or 1/3 the amount.
But what it all means is hard to gauge. For example, the long increase from 1970 to 1990 involved the (re)entry of women into the workforce. The present a labor force participation rate now equal to that of 1973 might not involve the re-emergence of the happy homemaker.
Yeah, kind of like what I except but with ascii graphics.
But my implicit point is "people actively looking for work" has been a quantity whose definition shifts and who method of measurement shifts and which is inherently difficult to measure.
But what it all means is hard to gauge. For example, the long increase from 1970 to 1990 involved the (re)entry of women into the workforce. The present a labor force participation rate now equal to that of 1973 might not involve the re-emergence of the happy homemaker.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART