Questioning the merits of herd immunity is, in itself, a misnomer

The argument

Here's what a lot of us don't really want to hear: the truth of the matter is that it's not just Sweden who are trying to achieve herd immunity. Sweden is the only country who is trying to ostensibly achieve herd immunity. There is a distinction. All of these lockdown measures are just a slow-burn approach to herd immunity, without any government saying it outright. In the absence of a vaccine, the only chance we have of trumping this virus is by achieving herd immunity. Sweden will obviously reach herd immunity faster given its lack of lockdown. But the rest of the world is heading for periodic lockdowns and there is no vaccine available. In practice, this means the rest of the world is also doing its best to achieve herd immunity, just in slow motion. Without a vaccine, all we have is herd immunity. Or else it is the end of life as we have known it.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Critics reply that the argument rests on a false dichotomy — herd immunity through mass infection versus "the end of life as we have known it" — that ignores the actual purpose of lockdowns, which was to suppress transmission until a vaccine (which duly arrived) rather than to reach infection-acquired immunity slowly. Lockdowns and herd immunity are therefore not the same thing "in slow motion"; one aims to prevent infections until immunity can be conferred safely. The claim also assumes infection produces durable protective immunity, which for this virus proved partial and waning. If suppression-until-vaccine was a genuine alternative strategy — and it was — then the merits of a herd-immunity-by-infection policy are a live question, not a misnomer.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] "Without a vaccine, the only option is herd immunity" was falsified by the arrival of vaccines; suppression until vaccination was a real alternative, so the underlying disjunction is false. [Rejecting P2] Lockdowns aimed to prevent infections until immunity could be conferred safely, not to reach infection-acquired immunity slowly, so equating them with a covert herd-immunity strategy misdescribes their purpose. [Rejecting C] If a distinct suppress-until-vaccine strategy existed and largely succeeded, then debating the merits of deliberate herd immunity is a genuine policy question, not a misnomer — so the "irrelevant" conclusion fails.