There seem to be two camps on this topic. One says that this is great, and we should continue every effort possible to stop the spread, presumably for an unlimited number of months or even years. That means staying locked down with minimal economic activity and somehow dealing with the consequences as they come. This is the "wait for the vaccine" camp, which I find hard to join because even if a safe vaccine can be created, it could be a year or two before it is sufficiently tested and deployed. California seems to be leading this camp in the US.
The second camp says that excess healthcare capacity means we should begin reopening the economy until capacity becomes strained. This is the "let the virus spread" camp, and implicit in the argument is that we should allow more people to die from the virus. This camp is winning. Most states and Western nations have started to ease restrictions knowing full well that it means the virus will spread. The hope is that less stringent restrictions can still allow the rate of transmission to be controlled enough to avoid catastrophe.
(There is also a third, fringe camp in the US of right-wingers, and while it is easy to dismiss them, they are actually winning in states like Georgia and Texas)
My understanding at the start of lockdowns was that these were intended to "bend the curve" so we could get control of the situation and then allow the virus to spread at a rate that would not overwhelm healthcare capacity. But more and more people I know seem to be in the "wait for a vaccine" camp. Personally, my imagination struggles to comprehend what another 12+ months of lockdowns would mean for civilization. The loss of life from disease, though obviously abhorrent, is actually a concept my brain can manage (which is not to imply it has more merit, just an honest observation).