Okay so the argument goes something like this:
1) COVID19 only goes away when there is a vaccine, or some degree of population-wide immunity from having been infected previously.
2) In the best case a vaccine is far away and in the worst case there will never be one.
3) Given that, our most likely path out is through herd immunity, which means ~70% of the population getting infected.
4) Since it is inevitable that most of the population is going to contract the virus, the only point of restricting the spread is to keep the health system from being overwhelmed Lombardy-style, and to steer the virus away from the elderly and at-risk, so the rest of the population can build up immunity with fewer deaths.
5) Countries that have seemingly "beaten" the virus are only winning Pyrrhic victories, because they rely on continuing and unsustainable restrictions on people's mobility. As soon as they remove those restrictions, the virus will come roaring back until 70% of the population have the antibodies. South Korea, China, New Zealand, etc. are merely delaying the inevitable at great economic cost. (the flipside of this is that countries like Sweden aren't necessarily doing "worse" for having excess deaths now, since other countries will be suffering those as well, just a smidge later)
that about right?
