[Genuine Realist]

Finally, was the notion of 'flattening the curve' chimerical from the start? A goal that is not possible to achieve as a practical matter, because of the number of essential businesses and the quantum of non-compliance? If so, wouldn't it be better to accept the society as it is and work towards practicable goals of realistic containment than insist on the imposition of draconian controls with no set time limit?

I'm not sure what you mean here.  We have dramatically flattened the curve.  Even in states where there is an increase in cases, R is on the order of 1.2 - 1.4, not as high as the R0 of 2.5 - 3.  That means that while the number of cases are increasing, they aren't increasing as fast it would have in the absence of measures.  And we reducing the restrictions.  I think in an ideal world, you titrate the restrictions to ensure R is slightly less than 1, loosening them as long as case counts are declining and tightening them as case counts start to climb.

I think Europe is (generally) a good case study.  I posted a plot of the number of cases in Europe versus the United States post peak, and you could see that the number of cases in Europe dropped dramatically compared to the US.  In most places (excepting Sweden), the lockdowns were harsher and more dramatic than in the US.  And you can draw a direct line from that to declining number of deaths and cases.  As a consequence, they are also able to relax their lockdowns more aggressively.  The benefits of the lockdown are immediately apparent to most Europeans.  The US is caught in a bit of a purgatory.  We are locked down enough to cause economic pain and provoke a backlash, but not effectively enough to prevent cases from rising in a bunch of places.

Perhaps that is the source of your frustration.  But I can assure you that things would almost certainly be worse in a world where there were no restrictions whatsoever.  We have seen that story play out: Italy, Spain, New York prior to lockdowns, Brazil and Mexico now.  While things aren't looking great in Florida, Texas, Arizona, California and a few other places, we still aren't talking about things spiraling out of control.

BC

I meant the absolute flattening that was the ultima thule.  We all hoped that SIP would produce a curve that flattened to the vanishing point

My question was more about marginal utility than the tactic. No one with any sense doubts that SOME lockdown of SOME duration was required. The issue is whether the marginal value of the lockdown beyond a certain point in time justified the return in terms of case reduction. I don't think anyone really knows, but it's a question that should be asked.

As for European comparisons, continental Europe is not the same as the US (duh). I'd say that the comparisons favor the US in almost every way EXCEPT discipline in a pandemic. You'd have to factor in different modes of public mobility, different employment patterns, above all, the radically pluralistic nature of US society. We pull in every direction, a Good Thing, generally - you hardly need be reminded of the havoc docile populations can wreak - but not so good in a pandemic, no question. 

These are perspectives, not answers. All I'll say for sure is that pushback was inevitable against the imposition of the protocols, and that a fair amount of non-compliance was inevitable. The question of whether the means here was excessive in terms of what ends could realistically be achieved is a valid one.

[Genuine Realist]

Finally, was the notion of 'flattening the curve' chimerical from the start? A goal that is not possible to achieve as a practical matter, because of the number of essential businesses and the quantum of non-compliance? If so, wouldn't it be better to accept the society as it is and work towards practicable goals of realistic containment than insist on the imposition of draconian controls with no set time limit?

I'm not sure what you mean here.  We have dramatically flattened the curve.  Even in states where there is an increase in cases, R is on the order of 1.2 - 1.4, not as high as the R0 of 2.5 - 3.  That means that while the number of cases are increasing, they aren't increasing as fast it would have in the absence of measures.  And we reducing the restrictions.  I think in an ideal world, you titrate the restrictions to ensure R is slightly less than 1, loosening them as long as case counts are declining and tightening them as case counts start to climb.

I think Europe is (generally) a good case study.  I posted a plot of the number of cases in Europe versus the United States post peak, and you could see that the number of cases in Europe dropped dramatically compared to the US.  In most places (excepting Sweden), the lockdowns were harsher and more dramatic than in the US.  And you can draw a direct line from that to declining number of deaths and cases.  As a consequence, they are also able to relax their lockdowns more aggressively.  The benefits of the lockdown are immediately apparent to most Europeans.  The US is caught in a bit of a purgatory.  We are locked down enough to cause economic pain and provoke a backlash, but not effectively enough to prevent cases from rising in a bunch of places.

Perhaps that is the source of your frustration.  But I can assure you that things would almost certainly be worse in a world where there were no restrictions whatsoever.  We have seen that story play out: Italy, Spain, New York prior to lockdowns, Brazil and Mexico now.  While things aren't looking great in Florida, Texas, Arizona, California and a few other places, we still aren't talking about things spiraling out of control.

BC

I meant the absolute flattening that was the ultima thule.  We all hoped that SIP would produce a curve that flattened to the vanishing point

My question was more about marginal utility than the tactic. No one with any sense doubts that SOME lockdown of SOME duration was required. The issue is whether the marginal value of the lockdown beyond a certain point in time justified the return in terms of case reduction. I don't think anyone really knows, but it's a question that should be asked.

As for European comparisons, continental Europe is not the same as the US (duh). I'd say that the comparisons favor the US in almost every way EXCEPT discipline in a pandemic. You'd have to factor in different modes of public mobility, different employment patterns, above all, the radically pluralistic nature of US society. We pull in every direction, a Good Thing, generally - you hardly need be reminded of the havoc docile populations can wreak - but not so good in a pandemic, no question. 

These are perspectives, not answers. All I'll say for sure is that pushback was inevitable against the imposition of the protocols, and that a fair amount of non-compliance was inevitable. The question of whether the means here was excessive in terms of what ends could realistically be achieved is a valid one.