What makes you think that the initial surge will stop? The reason the initial surge in March stopped was because we closed everything down.

What mechanism is going to stop the surge from lifting lockdown? What has changed since March, and why is it enough to bring R to 1?

Why didn't South Korea think the same way that you did, and just decided to let infections surge, and see if they stop on their own?

Same as the first -- voluntary social distancing. I think you missed my point, which is that I don't believe the government is really in control, at least not in western democracies. I think people are choosing for themselves to isolate, and I think they will continue to adjust that decision based on their perceived risk.

I think there would be a surge at first because there is some pent up demand for things people feel like they need, or they really want to do and they don't perceive a strong risk. So these people would cause a surge, it would hit the news, and most people would then panic themselves right back indoors, then a month or so later we'd do it all again.

Someone released a study a few days ago suggesting that if we could actually achieve nearly universal compliance with mask wearing in public indoor spaces (I think they said 80%) then a slight improvement over our current masks (better than the homemade cloth or disposable surgical masks, not necessarily N95 level though), we could push R0 below 1.0 without really doing anything else different from normal everyday activities. I don't think we can expect that compliance rate, though.

If your thing is going to bars, and all the bars are closed, you're not 'choosing' to self-isolate[1]. I mean, yes, you are choosing to stay home instead of aimlessly wandering the streets, but most people don't care to do that. If the reason they want to leave their home is not there, they won't leave the home.

Re-open the bars, and suddenly all those people who 'chose' to self-isolate will start 'choosing' to go out to drink and mingle.

Also, you are vastly underestimating the number of people who, for good reasons, or bad, don't give a shit about their personal risk. They will be actively getting people who are actively trying to minimize personal risk sick, because the latter can't avoid essential social interactions.

When your personal risk includes liability for anyone else you get sick, I'll be more than happy to let you frame this entire conversation as personal risk. Until then, what people taking 'personal risk' are doing is shirking personal responsibility.

[1] The bar owner is 'choosing' to comply with the shutdown order, but that's because his personal risk[2] profile is completely different to that of his patron. His personal risk profile has to account for externalities caused by operating his business. He can be fined, lose his liquor license, etc. His patron's doesn't care about those externalities, because when the patron's irresponsible behaviour gets someone else sick, nobody goes after the patron.

[2] The fact that you're even talking about personal risk is why re-opening can't work in America. This is, and has never been about personal risk. Personal risk isn't something that legislature needs to control. The problem with epidemics is social risk, and patrons are in no position to accurately access it.

This is not a good faith argument, why are you trying to frame it as some kind of moral good vs evil dichotomy?