It is the right decision for an highly infectious virus, that's passed through via small particles like aerosols and affects your respiratory system. I know th

It is the right decision for an highly infectious virus, that's passed through via small particles like aerosols and affects your respiratory system. I know that no government has came forward to say it: but the decision to live with this virus was probably the most stupid mistake of the past 100 years, and comes in the time where politics and politicians were already seen for bad leadership and for being detached from the everyday reality. For example, in my country, Portugal, we've been struggling with this and some weeks ago stricter measures were set in place - that came very late, after the national health system was on the verge of collapsing... what's the decision for the time of the year where most mobility is registered, Christmas? "Let's stop the measures for 2 days, but be careful." I shit you not. The most critical time for spread is when they let everyone go to each other homes. The reason is simple, so no one can say they didn't let us celebrate Christmas, and they warned us to be careful - this is politics, it's not dealing with a pandemic and an health system on the verge of colapse. --- So replying to your question, until there's no spread it's the right decision. Because living with the virus isn't good for the economy, and proof is countries with the virus controlled or with little to no cases, are in economic recovery (like we needed that data to know this, but still, there's something).