No I didn't. Let me remind you of the post I made, which you decided to try to criticise:
"I hear what you are saying but there is a fundamental flaw in the various assumptions above "most people will get this at some point".
That absolutely must not be allowed to happen and it can be prevented. It must be prevented. If it is only as deadly as flu and say 40m or 50m people get it then that means 50,000 people dead. Which would mean multiples of that needing ICU treatment and we have nowhere near the capacity to cater for those numbers in any sorts of near timescale, so even more dead.
The objective is to prevent as many people as possible from getting this, not forever, but until a vaccine arrives. And then vaccinate everyone."
And your reply:
"There is absolutely zero chance of this happening. Your plan to lockdown even more severely than we already are for 18 months is a complete fantasy."
You're replying to a post I did not make. Seems to me you just like arguing.
My reply was to the post you made. Specifically the part where you think the objective is to stop as many people as possible from getting it until a vaccine arrives.
That's not the objective. It can't be.
The strategy you agree with, lockdown-relax-lockdown, is not designed to stop as many people as possible from getting it. How can you not understand that?
That strategy is designed to simply spread out the timeline of when people get it. If the strategy was to stop people getting it then we would be in lockdown for 18 months.
The lockdown-relax-lockdown strategy allows the virus to spread under the conditions where the NHS is not overrun and while shielding the particularly vulnerable.
That should be clear to anyone who has read the strategy and seen the 60/100/200/1000 ICU cases per week triggers for bringing lockdown back - it's all about a slow and steady spread with the lockdowns acting as breakers when we got overwhelmed.
That's why the models which include the lockdowns still predict 20-40 million people getting it.