I dont think a continuous lockdown lasting that long is considered a viable option by governments anywhere.
So when we face a period where the pronounced risk period is expected to last around 6 months, I dont take that to mean a 6 month lockdown. Especially as we saw the first time how long it takes to significantly reduce transmission under a harder lockdown, the numbers should dwindle far quicker than that, even though they will bounce back after a period of easing.
So far more likely we will see measures ramped up and down over the period, with the most draconian lockdown bits done in shorter bursts.
Not that I have a really clear sense in my mind of how they will time that stuff, how bad it will actually be allowed to get at different stages, etc. I suppose I expect one of more intensely grim periods but I cannot say too much more about that until I see what happens next.
As for the end game, not convinced things will ever be quite the same again. Especially if some of the behaviours, lessons and economic implosions from this pandemic end up merging with stuff relating to other big issues of the century such as climate change and fossil fuel depletion.
No time to properly get into that last point now, but here are some clues via something from the last BP Statistical Review of World Energy, which puts the behavioural changes and disruption in this pandemic into that broader context: