Let's look at British Columbia, Canada where we have managed to stabilize at ~10 cases a day. How long before we get the same number of deaths with our population of 5 million people. Hmm, 5 million divided by 10 divided by 365 is 1369 years. Even if we consider 10 cases for every one detected case that's ~137 years! Longer than a human life span. Ignoring things like improved treatment options, vaccines, and other things that are going to change in our understanding.

So I think this proves the argument wrong.

If you consider the other costs you're avoiding, long term issues for sick people, the cost of treating all these people in hospital, the potential for people to get sick with this multiple times (we don't know if you get any immunity by getting sick) then it's even clearer.

Your argument boils down to: keep society shut down forever, problem solved.

They have only stabilized at that level if you are willing to permanently keep things the way they are. Are you comfortable with the restrictions currently in place being permanent?

Hopefully a vaccine is discovered.

I think we can keep things where they are. The current restrictions aren't great but they are sustainable:

- Virtually no travel in and out of the country (goods still flow though).

- No gatherings > 50 people.

- Keep 2m away from others (except for "bubbles").

- Wash your hands.

- Masks in certain situations (not mandatory for most).

- Various limitations in place as to how businesses operate, e.g. distance between tables in restaurants, physical barriers, cleaning, one way aisles in stores etc etc.

Since I'm not the type or age who goes partying out in crowded bars or to packed concerts that stuff doesn't really bother me personally. Sure, it's no fun, but the alternative seems like a lot less fun. In my (global) company we all switched to wfh when this started and I'm fine with that.

Wow. All I can say is that you have very different priorities than most others. Most are ok with those changes temporarily. Almost nobody is willing to make that sacrifice permanently.

Permanently != until there's a vaccine or effective treatment.

There's lot of room for optimization/improvements. Travel might be ok to locations that have this under control, for example. We might find better solutions for keeping the transmission low. We could decide to clamp down harder and eradicate the virus locally so that we can trade off local restrictions vs. travel restrictions.

It's just between all the bad options here this seems to be the least bad. 2 years of the disease raging through the community until (maybe) there's herd immunity sounds so much worse. I'm pretty sure the Americans who think this is the way to go will change their minds come this fall assuming the current trend continues. Maybe I'm wrong... Let's catch up in December ;)

Well, I’m not sure what I think, honestly, but I just wanted to point out that a vaccine is not a sure bet, just like herd immunity is not a sure bet.

> Youre are going to have the same number of deaths sooner or later as long as the hospitals aren't overwhelmed.

Even assuming there's never a vaccine or effective cure, this is not true: temporarily reducing the R number (lockdowns, distancing, masks) reduces the overshoot in the total number of people who get the disease (some proportion of which will die). It's the difference between scenario 0 and scenario 1 in the excellent https://ncase.me/covid-19/ playable models.

What you just said, and the link you just linked, say two completely different things. You should watch that link again.

Quoting the site: "This reduces total cases! Even if you don't get R < 1, reducing R still saves lives, by reducing the 'overshoot' above herd immunity. Lots of folks think "Flatten The Curve" spreads out cases without reducing the total. This is impossible in any Epidemiology 101 model. But because the news reported "80%+ will be infected" as inevitable, folks thought total cases will be the same no matter what. Sigh."

What I said: "temporarily reducing the R number (lockdowns, distancing, masks) reduces the overshoot in the total number of people who get the disease (some proportion of which will die)."

How are these "completely different"?

The R value is only reduced while extreme measures are active.

It will go back to its normal r value one society returns to normal.

There's no avoiding society returning to normal as people need jobs to pay rent and buy food.

The R is reduced while any effective measures are active. The playable sim for Scenario 1 has them active while there's blue shading over the graph, deactivating them once herd immunity is reached in that sim. In that case, compared to scenario 0 (do nothing), fewer people have been exposed so fewer people die. So it is not true to say, as you did, that "Youre are going to have the same number of deaths sooner or later as long as the hospitals aren't overwhelmed."

> There's no avoiding society returning to normal as people need jobs to pay rent and buy food.

You've moved the goalposts, but even so, the later sims suggest other things that can be done with less invasive measures like test and trace, wearing masks and social distancing. These don't prevent people doing jobs. They do decrease the number of people who die.

They are preventable, vaccine on the horizon.

SARS is a coronavirus and there's never been a vaccine for it.

How do you know there's a vaccine on the horizon?