No, what I've said, from the beginning, and more than once, is that the goal is to flatten the curve in order to not overwhelm health services, until there is herd immunity, and that it is not good for those with serious risk factors, as well as for many other reasons, to try and flatten it beyond that. And that the goal is herd immunity if it is possible, and that if so the expectation is that about 80% of people will have to have the virus to achieve that. How long that would mean spreading it out is unclear and will depend on your health services anyway. I suggested a few posts back that the planners here are anticipating 30% exposure this year, and I think they are satisfied they can manage that. However if they couldnt it doesn't necessarily mean that they could keep strict measures in place for longer to compensate. Again - the OP asked, is the goal herd immunity, or is it elimination, and are people starting to think it is the latter, and are any governments saying that. Elimination isn't an option in most places, was my answer, and some people do seem to be thinking it is the goal, but governments generally are not saying that.

Yeah, that's not really what I was suggesting, it was a follow on from the post I was responding to which was about how people behave.

I don't mean distancing just after he shops, I mean distancing from him altogether. As in, you don't touch him at all, you don't get closer than six feet from him, you don't sleep in the same bed. Some health care workers here, if they have vulnerable family members, are living separately in airbnbs, not seeing their kids. Most people who are just higher risk, say with obesity, or asthma, aren't doing that stuff. But for the most vulnerable that's the recommendation. I don't know if it amounts to lip service, but that level of isolation can really only be maintained for a short time IMO, some may not be willing to do it at all. I think what gets a little lost sometimes is that those people are already at high risk to die of some infection, but then you essentially are having to tell them you can't do anything for them. I'm not sure fatality rate alone is what is in question. It's more what difference can you make by acting, and what are the trade-offs (like fatalities caused by the measures.). I suppose we could have a highly contagious virus that kills 50% of us come up next week, if we do the maximum possible (whatever that is) and it prevented most of those deaths, we'd still have to ask how long they would be sustainable, and eventually settle for something less. And that still might be "too many" deaths.

Look, I am not sure what you are arguing here. Herd immunity at a level that doesn't overwhelm health care means not so many dead at once, that's the point. No one is saying that some measures won't carry on, but they are not going to be able to be maintained at the higher level they have been long term. And that means there will still be transmission, more than under current restrictions, until either there is vaccination, or immunity, or maybe we will have to get used to them permannenly. Keep in mind that the most significant restrictions may be the ones it's most difficult to keep up long term. But you do realise how that impacts those who have been told they need to be sequestered? And what if there is no vaccine, or much better treatment options? Do you want them to come out, knowing that if they catch it they will almost certainly die? Some people have called this the "sacrifice the elderly" approach. It may be that its the only realistic option if it becomes simply a regular yearly infection, but I am struggling how anyone is seeing is as evidence of being kinder.

I think you are right about lack of trust in the information. It's become a problem in so many areas. And lack of trust in government tends to cause elevated reactions and I think contributes toward things like hoarding. If you can't trust the larger social structure it quickly becomes every person for themselves. I'm not sure it's all about trusting that most will be fine if they get sick though that must help a lot. But I think the people I know who are most calm see it more in terms of - there are many things I could die from, and this is just one of them, one day, it will be one thing or another. To some extent that's personality I guess, that's a very phlegmatic response. But it might also depend in part to the larger social attitude about things like healthcare and death, and also the way those things are supported in the larger culture.

Most churches here closed, or as good as closed, before restrictions on meetings. Restrictions are that no groups larger than 5 and two meters apart, some some churches are having tiny services (like, minister and organist or something like that) and broadcasting them, or even just doing them without broadcasting them.

So, I've asked my relative just now what the numbers they are anticipating are. He said 30% of the population in the next year, 60% in the next apox. 24 months. But a lot will depend on whether there is immunity, and that will become clearer as they begin to open things up again. Also, it's possible a second or third wave of infection might be worse than the first. If there is total immunity, some of the models say that after the initial group of those who become ill die, there will be a general population immunity, the virus will just be around but most will be immune. If there is no immunity, or partial immunity like the flu, it will probably come and go, maybe seasonally. The only option would be measures that can be sustained long term to reduce chance of illness, and hope for some sort of vaccination or other way to control it to emerge. But in any case planning needs to watch carefully what happens as they begin to open things up in order to decide what to do next.

It's not really an "even if" discussion though. What's the other option? It's not under our control, it's a virus. Even with people washing hands, working at home, not travelling, and all the rest, there is still transmission. Are you suggesting we go for a complete quarantine until, and if, we manage to find a vaccine? It seems to me like you are saying that because this is too many deaths, we can't allow that, but I'm not sure why you think we can control it. We don't manage to control many illnesses. And how would you plan to manage the problems created by maintaining long term social isolation? If that is what you are advocating you have to account for that end of it too. With a larger population their will be a larger number of deaths, that's the math as you say, but do you really think places with a smaller population are in a different situation? They have fewer resources.

Sure, I'm not suggesting that it is a given. Local situation plus what you might call national character plays a role. I was really just saying that here, the impression many people seem to have is that the measures are meant to prevent transmission altogether. When I've talked to people on the US or UK, there seems to be a similar group of people who are understanding it the same way - their response might be different, but that seems to be the impression a lot of people are getting from the way things are being described. ETA: I think your idea about washable stuff is interesting. At the moment their might not be the infrastructure to manage the washing - I'm not sure. But in general I think there has been a really significant demonstration that global supply lines and dependence on disposable items of all kinds are not as reliable as people have felt.

Well, it's what most jurisdictions are anticipating even with the social distancing measures. They are still expecting to have a herd immunity situation at the end of it, so something like 80% or more who have caught it. The most vulnerable people, ie people on immuno-suppresent drugs and the very fragile, those in care homes, etc are here not being told to do just those things. They are being told that if they want to avoid infection they need to completely quarantine. For example if their spouse goes out to do the shopping, they need to social distance from their spouse in their own home. That's not what the public is being told to do, it's what the doctors are telling them privately and how they are managing the care homes. (Although the latter isn't working well because they can't make the workers live in.)

It depends on where you live - some places have managed and hit peak without overwhelming services or are anticipating that they will. Others even with very strict care will not manage. A lot depends on the state of the health system to start and how far ahead they were able to plan. Unfortunately if you are in the sort of place where services will be overwhelmed they will have some hard decisions to make about things like triage, because they won't eliminate transmission. They can only keep measures in place until the worst is over. ETA: All that is still an attempt to flatten the curve though, it's just not flat enough to completely solve the problem.

Yeah, I don't try and get colds, but they are horribly contagious and there is no vaccine, so I know I will get them from time to time. People modelling how the common cold behaves are also going to count on everyone getting it eventually because that's just realistic. People where I live are really very good about complying, the main group we see not doing it has been teenagers and that's because they are teenagers. But we've had some problems in the other direction, like people reporting neighbours, or getting angry because people were doing things they thought were wrong even though they were allowed, and a lot seems to be driven because they have the impression that if they just follow the rules carefully, people will not become ill - themselves or others. There have started to be problems with people refusing to provide childcare for health workers or allow them to rent properties. They don't seem to understand that just like with a cold, even taking precautions they are likely to catch the virus in the next six months or so, and that is part of what is making them very reactive. Having enough PPE is part of medical services not being overwhelmed.

The original question in the OP was, is the goal to flatten the curve, or eliminate covid. I think you have to read the answers in that context. Flattening the curve was always meant to get us to herd immunity. But a lot of people are behaving (in the world, not here) as if the goal now is to eliminate it, or at least stop many people from ever getting it.

Trying to slow spread to better understand the biology of the virus doesn't particularly seem to be a concern for the doctors and scientists making the plan. I know data is a concern - one of my relatives that's involved in covid management is mainly a data person and so that's something she is really concerned with along with projections of different scenarios, and they are adapting as new information becomes available, but my sense is that's just not part of a realistic approach. They are already trying to slow down transmission in order to avoid overwhelming health services. IN any case if people don't become immune slowing the spread more won't change that and there are still limits to how much people can do and for how long. I'm not sure where you got the idea I want people to get it faster, as what I said was the goal is to keep it at a level that keeps health services viable, which means slowing it - how much that requires will depend on where you live, in some cases it may not be possible to prevent it. What I am questioning is the value (and the possibility frankly) of slowing it beyond that. You might improve management a little. Vaccination is not likely in the near term and maybe not at all so it's probably not sensible to wait for that. But it also comes with big downsides which you don't seem to be counting as very significant. And a major major one is those who are the most physically at risk will not be able to resume anything like a normal lifestyle as long as you are going for suppression. Their choice become really significant health risks or personal quarantine at a level far beyond what you or I are having to deal with.

Yes, that is a concern, though they seem to think there is a really good chance that there is going to be at least partial immunity. But we can't really control that, it's just a matter of finding out as it becomes clear. If there is no immunity than none of the strategies being used will work, everyone is going to need to come up with a new plan. To some extent the economists are right, and the behaviourists - we can shut down some things short term that cannot be shut down long term, so if there is no herd immunity we likely won't be able to prevent it going round altogether. I actually think one of the benefits potentially of all this is that people might realise that more local sustainability is important, and that we can do fine with less energy and time and money spent on production of consumables. But there are things we do need. And I don't think people will be willing to do things like never have social gatherings, not have funerals, see local family, etc, in the long term, even if there is a risk they will become ill.