I'm skeptical that the public can endure a single 2-3 month lockdown to begin with. But a lot can change in 2 months, so it is far from certain the lockdown will last that long.

For example

- a treatment might be found which reduces the fatality rate, making it a less dangerous disease

- widespread testing might show that a significant portion of the population already had it and were asymptomatic, thus we have herd immunity sooner than expected in places like New York and Spain/Italy

- antibody testing might become mainstream, so if there was a certificate for people who have already gotten it, that subset of the population can return to a normal life.

- the public support for the lockdown evaporates if it goes on for too long and unemployment skyrockets, so the government might move to a more moderate measure - e.g.: only lock down the people at risk, and let everyone else return to a normal life.

- rapid and cheap tests because widespread, so perhaps you can just get tested before boarding a plane, or entering a shopping mall, etc.

(widespread testing might show that a significant portion of the population already had it and were asymptomatic, thus we have herd immunity sooner than expected in places like New York and Spain/Italy)

I think this is a dangerous myth as till now infected people are infecting a lot of the people they come in contact with. Had the virus already passed through a lot of people already the spike in number of ICU cases would not be happening now nor keep increasing at the same rate

Sure, many positive developments may happen, but we should prepare for the likely possibility of not one of those things happening.

What if we don't find a cure and a vaccine takes 3 years?

Cheap, fast testing is almost there but I don't see how that actually helps... What do we do with people who didn't yet get the virus? Should they stay at home? Since they're a majority, it's not very different from the current situation. Or should they go out and "chance it"? Are you willing to do that in the absence of a cure?

Yes, I'm willing to do that in the absence of a cure. I wouldn't like, go to a packed stadium, but I'll happily invite friends over or eat at a restaurant once it's permitted again.

Widespread testing makes contact tracing viable, assuming a big suppression in cases from lockdown.

Simply put, yes - staying at home all day isn't living, it's just existing. And giving up 3 of the best years of my life isn't a price i'm willing to pay, even if there is no cure or vaccine.

If you aren't willing to "pay the price" now, then you will pay the price in other ways later. Your actions are not isolated and affect others, and not doing your part to prevent this from getting worse is an extremely selfish action. Obviously it's one thing if you have to go to work, or go out to get food, but if you willingly go out just because you want to experience the "best years of your life" and potentially put yourself and others at risk, you should reflect on that and realise how selfish and potentially dangerous that is.

If you have a difficult time putting this in perspective, just swap COVID-19 and social distancing for HIV and condoms.

I don't follow the analogy. Social distancing restrictions are much more severe than condoms; unless you live with a SO, you're not allowed to even touch anyone right now.

I don't buy this. You can have two populations one that social isolates and one that doesn't. You get pick which one you want to be in. Those two populations can't mix.