The last 100 years during previous pandemics the reaction was not to shut down the entire country.
If the goal is to keep hospitals from being overwhelmed and let covid run it’s course then you take action only when there is an imminent threat of the system being overwhelmed.
1) Which previous pandemics over the last 100 years?
2) When did keeping the hospitals from being overwhelmed become
THE goal in dealing with the virus? It was one of the goals in the beginning, when it was a real concern. But the one and only goal?
3) You've mentioned locking down and shutting down the country a few times. You understand that the measures everyone is talking about here is to prevent that from happening, right? Doing nothing, like you suggest, makes a shutdown to avoid catastrophe more likely, not less.
If your game plan is to hold off until a vaccine hopefully saves the world then you can try what England and Israel are doing. Even so the current situation does not look to be as alarming as some are making it out to be.
My game plan is to take proactive measures to avoid what is happening in England and Israel altogether. Neither of those countries are models to emulate, IMO. As I stated before, the problem with reacting to facts on the ground is that you're always a few steps behind, and getting behind in this game virtually guarantees drastic measures will be taken to try to make up ground.