Dutch prime minister just had his historic speech (last time that happened was during the oil crisis in 1973), where the main thing was him clearly laying out three options.
1. 'Maximum control' of the spread of the virus. Meaning we accept a huge number of people will get it, but we basically try and protect the vulnerable people and try to mostly keep the spread within the healthy population, thus building 'group immunity' and in the end stop the virus from spreading towards the vulnerable. The main thing of this is to make sure it's spread out over a larger period of time and hospitals don't get completely overwhelmed.
2. 'No control', just let it go basically. Obviously this would mean an insane peak which might be way shorter, but would completely overload hospitals and in the end be way more damaging.
3. 'Total lockdown' to try and stop the virus from spreading at all. This is considered to be just so incredibly impractical and unrealistic that it's not really an option. Another bad side of this is that a total lockdown will most likely take months, if not at least a year, and in the end there is no form of 'immunity' whatsoever. Basically, a total lockdown is a pure recipe to postpone the problems described in scenario 2. No thanks to that.
He announced we're going full-force with option 1, and I'm glad with it. It seems way better than locking everything down, which in the end is probably going to be the way more damaging.