pick one:

(a) wait for vaccine for indefinite period of time
(b) invasive testing
(c) invasive contact tracing
(d) cycle of opening up and closing down due to push-pull of political pressure and then mass death

my fear is that we will opt for (d) by default

mostly because it fits muddling through/garbage can models of political behavior

none of the other options are really great either. https://www.vox.com/2020/4/10/21215494/coronavirus-plans-social-distancing-economy-recession-depression-unemployment

but they are at least starting points and maybe modifiable in ways that could make things more feasible

(d) is the inertial path that more or less fits Epstein's twin contagion model https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/31/coronavirus-americafear-contagion-can-we-handle-it-157711

e.g in Epstein ABM you have virus causing demand for lockdown, then containment lowering fear of virus followed by opening up, opening up causes virus to wreak havoc, then demand for re-lockdown and so forth

the Epstein ABM as a scenario becomes plausible if you assume that political decision-making mostly inertia-driven

the other options are roughs summaries of the think-tank plans discussed in this story https://twitter.com/Aelkus/status/1252617665979482114

something that comes through all of them is that some kind of undesirable outcome is inevitable.

testing and surveillance is, well, a significant infringement on people's privacy and everyday life. but then again being stuck at home perpetually waiting for vaccines is also not really great either for economy.

but the prospect of repeated openings and closings driven by short term political calculations is worse than all of the others

it really amounts to (a) but with a higher body count

this is the sort of scenario in which you really need a Herman Kahn-like figure in charge

Herman Kahn-like thinking is not "X thousand dead is an acceptable loss" stuff

It's more the ability to do speculative analyses of terrible scenarios without flinching and maybe some inappropriate jokes ("wargasm")

my read of the Asian "masks for everyone!" countries is that masks were just the icing on the cake of all of the other measures https://twitter.com/realmrkimbell/status/1252620522682290178

they cut down on spread due to the additive effects of everyone -- sick or not -- wearing masks but the heavy lifting had to be done via massive governmental response

in an ideal world you would do (a)-(d) simultaneously.

everything hinges on vaccine if and when available. in the meantime heavily test and trace. and strategically re-open to alleviate political and economic pressure with ability to close when needed

this would make it easier to mitigate the individual downsides of the particular policies in question. but due to political circumstances in the US in April you have to understand that they are really discrete options https://twitter.com/Aelkus/status/1252617665979482114

people responding "why not both/all" miss the point

you should consult medical tweeps about the specifics. the only thing I can contribute here has to do with the divergence between the options that have been already developed (which Klein summarizes in the link I shared) look like

we passed the "what we would we ideally do if this were a microbiology textbook problem" stage a long time ago

now we're in the part that looks more familiar to me from the problems I read about in other contexts: increasingly desperate governments considering stark tradeoffs in atmosphere of uncertainty