That's such a confused post.
Why does saving as many lives as possible equate to just existing? I'm not sure how you made that leap.
What sort of number of human beings (the family and friends of other people and each with their own hopes, goals, ambitions and cherished memories) are you willing to sacrifice in the near future? Give me a ball park annual figure.
Let me guess, if my answer is 0< then that makes me a MURDERER. I’ll go with Whitty and say when we reach a level similar to a normal flu year.
You don’t get to just answer my question with a question either though. If you want to say that 0 deaths moving forward is the only acceptable outcome then just say it. It’s impossible given how endemic this thing will/had become but you can still say it.
That’s the issue here- you view it as my responsibility to keep you or others safe. No matter what it takes and by any means necessary, with the state stepping in as much as possible if it has to. I view it as my responsibility to keep others safe as much as possible up to the point where to do so negatively impacts my own life, especially long term. I guess I’m a bad person but at least I’m honest. I wish you’d be honest and just admit you basically want a lockdown to achieve 0 Covid. Because it’s either that or you accept that there will be some deaths in the future. And seeing as you seem unwilling to do that, I don’t see what else you could be thinking.
Now, currently due to a majority of the country not being vaccinated, everyone has to take responsibility. But it’s pretty obvious that the measures that would save lives are being tolerated until mass vaccination takes place. You are however delusional if you think people will tolerate restrictions on their lives once hospitalisations and deaths fall massively, or that people actually have an appetite for these restrictions (in your first response to me you said the “majority” want measures to continue and for society to change- I highly doubt this).