the question is for how long. to some extent, it's a matter of trivia as to whether or not it will satisfy someone's definition of "recession".
for what it's worth, economists tend to talk about "contractions" instead, and we're clearly in a period of economic contraction, even if it turns out to be brief.
nber (national bureau of economic research) is widely regarded as the official arbiter of recessions, and here's their definition:
"a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales."
the "two quarters of negative gdp" definition commonly cited is a bit old and inaccurate, and vulnerable to calendar arbitrariness in addition to relying solely on gdp.
that said, both definitions require the negative growth to be sustained for a period of time. we clearly started negative growth a few weeks ago. in theory, if we could reverse the tide quickly enough, it wouldn't qualify as a recession. however, in practice, it's virtually impossible for the economic to halt its slide that quickly.
frankly it would take a miracle. even if a vaccine were to be announced today, it would take time to test, manufacture, distribute, and inoculate enough people to get everyone back to work and back to normal.
historically, nber pretty much always waits until very clear data has emerged to make their recession pronouncements. in practice, this basically means that any recession is nearly or already over by the time they announce it.
this time may be different, as the start of the recession was so clear and stark, they may make their announcement earlier than usual. that said, they'll still give it some time to make sure it's no a blip. though again, in practice, it's virtually impossible to see this not lasting long enough to be a recession per nber's definition.
= new reply since forum marked as read
