Why does the discussion go to the opposite end? No one is suggesting this as a goal.
Because you have to date not seemed to offer any idea for what we should be doing other than endless lockdowns. And when I suggested the American people were having quarantine fatigue, your response was basically "suck it up and quarantine, because this thing kills X% of people".
The only thing that I can take from that is that you believe we shouldn't be doing in-person schooling, that we shouldn't have reopened commerce, that we certainly shouldn't be playing football, etc. You haven't said that specifically, but your consistent message is to criticize anything other than lockdowns, so it's hard to draw any other conclusion.
For someone who claims to be a libertarian, you have espouse over and over again some very anti-libertarian positions. I am tempted to post "The Princess Bride" meme. 
I'll accept that criticism. I have a couple of policy points where I stray from the pure libertarian answer, and if this were a political blog, I would be happy to discuss in detail how and why I do so.
As it relates to COVID, however, I believe that the initial lockdowns were necessary. Effectively, knowing the American people, if we had taken a message like Sweden of "we're not shutting down but here's what you should personally do" I don't believe it would have been even remotely effective. The lockdowns were a mental reset of "hey, this thing is real and you'd better f$&%#^g take it seriously, citizens!"
Where we completely lost the narrative was when it was clear that lockdowns weren't going to eradicate the virus and we needed to reopen, we didn't cultivate a message of how to live in the new normal. We kept some of these lockdowns too long and with too little education on how to reopen safely.
As such, everyone has quarantine fatigue and many have given up on trying to prevent spread because it's just been too long and they don't feel personal risk.
