I don't get this narrative, everybody on the planet earth is currently relying on "heard immunity". What they don't agree on is about measures to take, which i

I don't get this narrative, everybody on the planet earth is currently relying on "heard immunity". What they don't agree on is about measures to take, which is two-dimentional slider (time, social distancing) that outputs multidimentional output of - time, age group death rate/absolute count, nhs capacity, economic impact, heard immunity, retransmission etc. On one side I'm impressed by the world's rapid response. On the other hand I'm surprised how poor published scientific modeling/decision making is. We know pretty much all of parameters we need to know by now. Making an online model should be as easy as interview task for data scientist. And we have greatest minds focusing/ready to dedicate time to it. Why are we doing fruitless political arguments? Just share the model and data on github. Refine it every day with new data. I'd start with real estimated infection counts (they can be derived from official confirmed infection counts by mapping on age weighted symptoms that require hospitalisation - those people are tested only plus incubation period estimated population - those people will not be tested but they are infected). Any current estimate I've seen seems to lag in time if you take under account incubation period (4d) and real estimated infection count vs confimed cases (5x+). We need plots for next 3 years or so with breakthrough placeholders - ie. it is highly unlikely that we won't have cure at some level to deal with it in 3 years from now. It is highly speculative game if you estimate further in the future, yes, but medium term there should be obvious optimal decision.