My post which you quoted discussed the risk of re-infection after you have been infected and then recovered. Current measures are based around preventing people from getting infected. Most studies seem to show that only about 5% of the population have been exposed in countries which have gone through the peak and then suppressed the spread of the infection so far.If that was the case, why have Governments (globally) reacted to the extent that they have? It makes no sense.
All the evidence points to this being grim, by which I dont mean the end of man kind - I mean 10-20% population reduction.
I'm seeing someone in August who is seriously in the know. Cant spill the beans on who it is but I'll get a proper low-down and if I can, I'll post what I think is reasonable without compromising them
The biggest concern at present is to prevent having so many people sick at one time that the health care system collapses, as happened in Italy and New York.
Over the longer term, they hope to develop a vaccine which will provide immunity, or at least enough immunity to cause the pandemic to fade away.
Spanish Flu killed tens of millions, but it hasn't been seen since despite there being no vaccine or cure. SARS was much more deadly than COVID-19, but it was successfully contained and apparently wiped out, despite there being no vaccine or cure.
It is quite conceivable that the virus could be eliminated in much of the world without a vaccine simply through public health measures, after which the problem will be to prevent it from being re-imported from countries where it is still prevalent. That may require the permanent use of quarantine of arrivals from outside of "safe" zones, which may cut into international travel, but is quite feasible in principle.
At present though, there are multiple different vaccines being developed, and the results for a number of them look promising.