Have I got this wrong?

[Rosebel]

So lockdown was to ensure the NHS wasn't overwhelmed by too many patients at once. The death rate is too high to ease restrictions but when they do the death rate will go back up again. Then we'll hit a second peak . The government want to reduce the risk of that.
Yet how can they? Am I wrong in thinking that no matter how long we are in lockdown for we will still have a second peak? If so is there a point to continuing lockdown? Or maybe I'm being thick and I have misunderstood? Surely a second peak will happen no matter how long lockdown continues or is it purely to ease the pressure on the NHS?

[PowerslidePanda]

A second peak is not inevitable - look at China. But it will take a lot of effort to avoid it.

Under natural conditions, everyone who gets infected infects another 2 to 3 people. By having a lockdown, we've drastically lowered this number. If we can keep it below 1, then infections will continue but just bubbling away at a low level - no second wave. The longer we stay locked down, the fewer cases there'll be when we start easing restrictions and the better chance we have of using techniques like contact tracing to keep that replication rate low.