It was addressed, along with all the other points.
You are implicitly believing that those measures can last for a long period of time if implemented right now. The government is arguing that there are inherent limits to how long that can go on for and that if they must be used at the right time, when more people are infected than at the moment.
The author of the article makes the same mistake. He writes as if social distancing is something you just switch on, and then the outbreak ends. There's no concept that normalcy must return, and so that there's some kind of planning involved in when and how to ramp it up/back down.
$ grep bed https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=22591395&goto=item%3Fid%3D22586451%2322591395
that there aren’t enough hospital beds to support a country that doesn’t aggressively and ruthlessly implement social distancing and contract tracing right now
$
Nope, you definitely didn’t address it and still haven’t.
Look, the key point here is neither you nor the author actually know to what extent "aggressively and ruthlessly implementing social distancing right now" will impact the need for beds, that concept isn't well defined. And you are still ignoring that such measures can't last indefinitely.
OK, so everyone is put under total curfew right now and shot if they're found on the street. The spread slows then stops. After a month life starts getting back to normal, and then case numbers start shooting up again. What then?
The optimal position is for every bed to be taken all the time, as that way the curve is flat at exactly the right point to get everything back to normal as soon as possible by having people build up immunity. We all have no idea when the right time to start asking people to hide in their homes is, or even if asking everyone to do that is a good idea. But we can be pretty sure it can't last forever and the right time for people to be isolating themselves is when most people have it, as that way they're getting sick and recovering at home. It's not at a time when most people don't have it and the home stay does nothing but put off the inevitable for a few more weeks.
You are implicitly believing that those measures can last for a long period of time if implemented right now. The government is arguing that there are inherent limits to how long that can go on for and that if they must be used at the right time, when more people are infected than at the moment.
The author of the article makes the same mistake. He writes as if social distancing is something you just switch on, and then the outbreak ends. There's no concept that normalcy must return, and so that there's some kind of planning involved in when and how to ramp it up/back down.