Just want to point out another thing before we really deal with the precautions/results of the second wave on a broad scale: unless countries that did not get impacted heavily in the first wave are hit much more severely in the second wave as a direct result, they have already succeeded in handling the first wave effectively. That chapter in the book has already been written.
If a country prevents an infiltration of COVID and is subsequently blindsided by Ebola would you say there was no point in saving the first batch of lives? The only way that analogy can be upended is if the countries with less prior spread become hit harder than those which don’t. Doesn’t seem to be the case when you look at the countries currently being hit hard (Belgium, Spain, France, UK, Italy, etc.)
There is much we have learned in how to treat the virus and how it spreads, as well as testing infrastructure and preventative knowledge. Countries will need to decide on policy in each country accordingly, depending on severity and scope of internal spread. But that does not change the facts: A first wave of infection spread through the world. Some countries (like Denmark) managed to control the spread and lost far fewer lives than comparable countries (say, Sweden). What happens now is a new chapter, with far more information available to aid decision making.
The first wave is over. We have the results from Sweden and Denmark. Who was right?