These are incredibly general statements. Obviously we'd all love it if our infection numbers were lower, so what? If achieving low infection rates would be simple we'd all be doing it, it's just that it's not.<p>I feel there's also some weird fallacy in this, the authors say infection numbers need to stay low in order to make contact-tracing work. That's what we did all summer, but then all of the sudden, infection rates exploded. Which, to me, sounds like contact-tracing alone doesn't really solve our problem here it's not this magic bullet that once you reach a certain threshold you're good to go. The other thing being masks. I've personally seen very strong adherence to mask-wearing in public throughout Europe in summer and autumn - again that, too, did not prevent this wave from happening. One cannot help but wonder how much those masks really help (especially the cloth types, proper ones probably help better).<p>I feel many virologists and epidemiologists are trapped in this spring 2020 way of thinking, they focus on masks and lockdowns - instead we need to start focusing more on super-spreader events, centralised quarantines, intelligent mass-antigen testing, technology-facilitated tracing, and active protection of the vulnerable with proper face-masks (Germany distributed them just this week...) and mass-screening.<p>We've also completely thrown over board many of our learnings from the aids epidemic - you won't defeat aids by banning sex. It just won't work... It's incredibly difficult, expensive and probably impossible in the long-run to control and ban these aspects of human life, just like banning small human gatherings is - we're social beings after all. The only way is public education that builds up individual responsibility (start using condoms, etc.)