In New York, the hospitals are so far under capacity that they're running TV ads begging people to start coming back in for elective procedures.
Now we see new waves popping up elsewhere and surprise, their hospitals are filling. Hospitals are having a great time in places where they took the virus seriously. New York did not take it seriously at first and they suffered. Now Texas and Florida are not taking it seriously and they are suffering as well. And you're suggesting that we can just let the virus run rampant and we won't see our healthcare system buckle?
Do you think 20% exposure (at a cost of 17.5k lives) buys you herd immunity?
Even in hotspots like New York City that have been hit hardest by the pandemic, initial studies suggest that perhaps 15-21%6,7 of people have been exposed so far. In getting to that level of exposure, more than 17,500 of the 8.4 million people in New York City (about 1 in every 500 New Yorkers) have died [...] To reach herd immunity for COVID-19, likely 70% or more of the population would need to be immune. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/from-our-experts/early-herd-immu...
The hope is that its more like 20% gets you herd immunity while practicing moderate social distancing. It's not too unreasonable. Japan has been able to avoid lockdowns and mass testing by mostly just using masks and avoiding very close conversations.
That's great if you need something done at a hospital that is not super time sensitive; it's not great if you're in the area where hospitals are overful and you have an urgent need.
Epidemic response needs to be done at a regional level in response to what's going on in that region, taking note of what's happening nearby as it might spill over, and learning from other areas within the country and worldwide to try to figure out what works best. It's totally reasonable, if the numbers support it, for some regions to be increasing restrictions and others to be decreasing restrictions. Clear communication from all levels of response would certainly help.