We don't yet what the limits are to the acceptance of lockdown, so I don't think you can assert any of this.
I don't assert, I mention it as a risk that be should considered. I also mention more than just acceptance, there are negative health effects attached it. But of course, we don't know, so let's ignore the reports about increased domestic violence and just assume we can extend it endlessly?
People keep talking about the "peak coming in three weeks" - but more in hope than with any real data to go on.
Well, these peak calls, at least of the ones I've seen are mostly based on proper arguments though they of course do come with caveats. Those peaks are however pretty much pointless, it's not the end of the crisis, at bests it's the end of the start of the crisis. You may be happy with waiting it out in a lockdown till we have a vaccine, for many, including me, it's not an acceptable path.
The chief medical dude in the US (who deserves a medal for putting up with the execrable Trump) has talked about possible American deaths of 100,000-200,000 ... which apart from the vast scale of it, is such a wide range as to be effectively meaningless.
It may be meaningless to you, I can only say that they are likely overly optimistic unless lockdown conditions are maintained for a very long time. I'ld say millions is more realistic.
So long as people aren't starving, or being evicted, and their kids are receiving some form of remote education or being home schooled ... I think society will put up with the isolation and lockdown rules for a very long time, even if the "light at the end of the tunnel" is estimated to be a long time into the future.
Sure, some are, but are there enough? And apart from people willing to put up with it, should we want to? You may deny/ignore the downside. There are healthcare specialists bringing up the subject and openly questioning how long we can/should put up with it.
The 2020 Olympics have been re-set for 23 July 2021 ... on the basis of what? That things will have returned to "normal" by then? They might well have - or indeed well before then ... but we simply don't know enough.
I don't know and unless they intend to hold them without public I would not be surprised if it got canceled/delayed again.
The problem with epidemiology is that expertise is only as good as the last epidemic, not the current one ... and the experts readily admit this themselves. Same with economics - but they rarely admit it.
It's clear you have no confidence in science and prefer to dismiss statistical probabilities as we 'don't know'. I prefer to play the odds, at least when they are clearly stacked one way or another. There is a reason that South Korea, Taiwan etc manage so well, they learned from previous epidemics and applied the lessons. Every epidemic the virus may be different and consequently comes with a learning curve. Reality is that they all have a lot in common too.
I think seasonality is the next big kicker - will significantly warmer weather in the Northern Hemisphere slow transmission? And if it does - a good thing - does it mean a second wave kicks in again when it turns cold again?
No certainties, but there is statistical research that suggests the seasonality effect is only very small. Don't bet the farm on it.
We really are hoping for a vaccine and/or an effective cure, and pretty soon.
Yea, we hope.... not really a strategy is it? Virtually all experts project a vaccin to be at least 1-2 years out. I can imagine that if early results look good they may start administering it early to old high risk people, but taking shortcuts with a vaccine is high risk as a bad vaccine may make a lot of healthy people sick. It's not like a medicine where you can simply choose to administer it without considering potential side effects as the alternative is (near) certain dead and there is no way to make it worse.
