Her point is that any lockdown method isn't going to work unless it's global and draconian (aka china method, or japan-level sanitation), because we're humans. Any area where the virus is defeated, will eventually have to open their borders (because humans will demand freedom of movement when the "threat is gone"), which then invites the S.Korean patient #31 scenario, where any single asymptomatic vector will start the whole infection again. There's no such thing as short-term pain for the good of the vulnerable. Shelter-at-home isn't a short-term solution. Nor is it a pain-free solution. Since there can be no "global shutdown", what is our long-term solution, assuming a vaccine won't be readily available soon, nor quickly distributable? Her solution is for people to decide for themselves if they want to take the risk of infection. Also that the scare-mongerers are just as irresponsible as the people who don't care and congregate.
I think she has a point about the long-term situation, because lockdown is a response, but NOT a solution. Basically, something that's been broached on this thread - herd immunity the young (which I consider to be under 35 and under (1/3 of the population), unlike you old folks who say 50 and under) to start, mask for all, and then release the next age group as hospitable beds free up. The most at risk would then need to isolate the longest, but they're the most like to be motivated to do so too. Everyone else is getting cabin fever (my two young kids are driving me batty as I try to work from home).
