This response is not sustainable when applied to entire populations for extended periods of time. Not only for the economy, but also for the mental well being o

This response is not sustainable when applied to entire populations for extended periods of time. Not only for the economy, but also for the mental well being of people: you can't build a society without contact (if you think this is too much, I've seen already people distancing from the elderly that might require aid for getting into a bus, for example, as if they were plagued). Secondly, vaccines work, but people forget pharmacological treatments, which can make a terrible disease manageable. As someone with a background in pharmacology, it baffles me when these options are never considered (like a post, probably trolling, which I saw on HN once, "The drugs don't work. Enjoy your 24 months quarantine"). Secondly, the "2+ years off" depends on the estimates. These are estimates made with previous experience, where one could afford waiting, if need be. This is not the case. "We can't wait 18-24 months", said at one point CanSino's CEO. I agree with him. Drugs or vaccines should, if the tests allow it (and despite the popular thinking, the current vaccines aren't rushed, the speed is mainly done because a lot of money has been poured into recruitment and monitoring) make sure that the situation is it at least lessened before that. Because if not, people will start blatantly ignoring any recommendations from authorities (and that would also mean governments becoming even more heavy-handed than today, which is already worrying).