The risk of the second wave is precisely the indication that our indefinite containment strategy was fundamentally flawed. We didn't actually avoid mortality in

The risk of the second wave is precisely the indication that our indefinite containment strategy was fundamentally flawed. We didn't actually avoid mortality in a permanent sense, we just postponed it. Which is why many on the side that you are advocating for are beginning to express the notion that we need to be on guard for the next _months-years_. Not just the next _weeks_. As briefly as possible: Containment only has real utility if we can develop a game-changer that drastically alters COVID-19 outcomes, and that we don't have to wait so long for it that lockdown-induced mortality eclipses the time-adjusted benefit. It's a risky strategy that requires waiting for an uncertain, temporally-unbounded event, which in turn means that the "indefinite postponement" strategy incurs unbounded cost. We simply don't know enough to make definitive predictions about upper bounds on time-to-discover-incredible-treatment. Whereas in a no-lockdown, natural herd immunity strategy, we are experiencing a fairly well-bounded spike in short-medium term mortality. I've been using Ferguson's 2.2 million figure for the US which is based off 82% population infection with an IFR of 0.9%, with the population equally susceptible at the physical level (behavioral differences are modelled, I believe). That's an excellent upper bound, it's certainly not the mortality we should _expect_. So we have a much tighter certainty, we will experience somewhere between 200,000-2.2 million deaths due to COVID-19. When weighed against the alternative, which again is to incur unbounded risk from lockdown-associated mortality, the correct path becomes quite clear in my opinion. A very marginal increase in all-cause mortality in the whole population could very easily offset the spike in COVID-19 mortality which is constrained to fairly limited subsets of the population overall.