That's a different argument. I'm saying that "lockdown until we have a vaccine or great treatment" might mean "lockdown until 2030". We already see heavy economic damages, civil unrest and riots after 4-8 weeks. Make that 40, 80 or 200 weeks and the world will be very different.
> Also nobody is arguing for "lockdown until we have a vaccine"
Some pepole in Italy were actually arguing for stronger limitations for 18-24 months until a vaccine was ready, and IIRC someone mentioned on HN a similar strategy (2 months closed - 1 months open) suggested for the UK.
So, there are people (in the authority chain) proposing for that. Whether they'll get listened to or not, it is another matter entirely. Personally I hope they don't.
Are you suggesting the riots in the banlieus in France are done by "astroturf protestors"?
And "flattening the curve" to buy time until we get a vaccine or a very successful treatment was literally in the comment I replied to. Not as in "we must lockdown until then", but as a goal we may reach if we continue with strict measures.
It's fine to want that, we just have to be aware that it might not happen (or might not happen soon) and that it isn't free.
Like "wear masks in public to lower transmission probability"? Anything that will let us carry on in a way that's close to normal is fine.
"Flattening the curve" was, at least here, generally translated into "stay at home if possible, keep 2m distance in public, close non-essential stores and offices". And those aren't sustainable, and they come at a price.
