You don't need 100%. There are parts of the world that have contained the virus (and may have eradicated it) even though essential services operated, even thou

You don't need 100%. There are parts of the world that have contained the virus (and may have eradicated it) even though essential services operated, even though people were permitted to leave their homes. Of course it can come back into those regions, but managing the spread is much less difficult once numbers are low enough for tracing. It becomes an exercise in public health regulations and targeted shutdowns. The other question is: what are the alternatives? We didn't even have a vaccine prior to December. Now that we have a vaccine, there are the logistics of immunising everyone willing. Once the willing are immunised, we don't know whether it will be enough to stop the spread and mutation of the virus. On the other hand, ignoring the problem won't protect the economy. High absenteeism due to illness or self-imposed isolation of high risk individuals are the best we can hope for. There are far worse scenarios. Ignoring the problem won't protect the health care system. Even if it could handle the increased numbers without impacting mortality rate due to covid, many procedures could not be undertaken since the risk of infection would impact the outcome of those procedures. The reality is that we are in a difficult situation. There is no perfect solution, simply solutions that improve outcomes. While vaccination may be a better long term solution, it is not a 100% solution. Also, the simplicity of lockdowns is about more than having time to get more prepared. It is about making the situation manageable. May it be through vaccination or isolation, creating a manageable situation is the key component to eradication.