Yes still 10's of thousands of cases a day and a few thousand deaths. I think more should be done to flatten the curve or avoid getting sick and spreading it.
That might very well be true. But that's a different argument from what was presented initially. The point of flattening the curve is not to reduce the total number of people who contract the virus. That can only happen when herd immunity is attained.
Further flattening of the curve will prevent cases only to the extent that some people continue to shelter in place indefinitely. At whatever point uninfected people come out of shelter prior to herd immunity, they will get the virus. And if a large segment of the population shelters in place, that delays the development of herd immunity.
That's the problem that Hawaii faces. If they lock down effectively to prevent the virus from landing, then at whatever point they reopen the population will not have immunity.
++++++++
At the outset, a persuasive case was made that measures needed to be taken to flatten the curve to keep the health care system from collapsing. There was generally strong buy-in to that rationale and argument.
And that has been accomplished in many locales. But if agencies want to change the "specification" from preventing collapse of the health care system to stifling the system, that is a different end point, that frankly requires a new buy-in from the populace. But there is no debate going on about that change. Many agencies are simply making that change in goal because they have decided it's a necessity and they can do so by fiat, without engaging in public debate.
It's even more egregious now because in the beginning time was of the essence in trying to knock down the infection wave. So implementation of measures without taking time for debate was necessary. But that's not the case now. In my mind, there is simply no reason for governments to change the goalposts and endpoints for shut down and shelter in place without going providing for discussion and debate.