The whole concept of restrictions that only apply for high infection rates shows lack of foresight. If you have a way to halve new infections in x weeks, you c

The whole concept of restrictions that only apply for high infection rates shows lack of foresight. If you have a way to halve new infections in x weeks, you can wait for y weeks during which infections double, then apply your countermeasures and after x+y weeks you're back where you started. Or you could start implementing countermeasures immediately, ease up after x weeks, and after y weeks of growth you're also back where you started. The only difference between the scenarios is the ordering, but the first leads to a mountain of infections and the second to a valley, i.e. lower total case count and fewer deaths. (Also a chance of extinction if the expected number of infected falls below 1.) So anything you're willing to do when 100 of 100k are infected is just as good when it's 50 of 100k or really any number greater than zero.