Actually, that can still be helpful. Say (making numbers up) that we have capacity to put a million victims in the hospital at one time. If we have two million cases who need hospitalization this week, that doesn't work, and we have people dying who could have been saved. If we have a million cases who need hospitalization this week, and a million cases that need hospitalization two weeks from now, that works, and those people end up OK. Heck, even if spreading it out means we have a THIRD million cases another two weeks after that, we're still ahead.
That's so good point it's surprising it's also official explanation from OUR politicians. Probably because noone would be believing them if they tried to claim they can stop it.
Not sure which are you willing to avoid, but little hint of a social activity which may not be possible for the rest of your life: elections.
The problem with virus will eventually be solved: even if we don't find any cure, people will eventually build better immunity, and even if reinfection is possible it wouldn't be that serious third time.
However, lot of governments were already limiting people's rights and privacy ... and this might give them excuse.
On the other hand, this will also be a big push for home office and electronic communication in general.
So, pessimistic view, there wouldn't be any elections. Optimistic one, they wouldn't be social event, as they would be online ... with "who voted for whom" no longer as secret as is now. Sure, it is technically possible to do secret elections online, but only if government wants.
The ability to pay by cash is also in danger. They already recommend not using cash as temporary measure in my country ... possibly because they don't believe cash will survive disinfection ... possibly because it's harder to track cash for tax purposes.