Did we read the same thing? I mean, if you want to argue semantics I guess I have nothing better to do all day, but it did say this: "In the UK and US context, suppression will minimally require a combination of social distancing of the entire population, home isolation of cases and household quarantine of their family members. This may need to be supplemented by school and university closures, though it should be recognized that such closures may have negative impacts on health systems due to increased absenteeism. The major challenge of suppression is that this type of intensive intervention package – or something equivalently effective at reducing transmission – will need to be maintained until a vaccine becomes available (potentially 18 months or more) – given that we predict that transmission will quickly rebound if interventions are relaxed. We show that intermittent social distancing – triggered by trends in disease surveillance – may allow interventions to be relaxed temporarily in relatively short time windows, but measures will need to be reintroduced if or when case numbers rebound. Last, while experience in China and now South Korea show that suppression is possible in the short term, it remains to be seen whether it is possible long-term and whether the social and economic costs of the interventions adopted thus far can be reduced."
I mean, it's all off a projected model, so sure -- none of it is written in stone. I wasn't trying to claim otherwise. But it's pretty clear that unless something completely unexpected happens, this isn't going away in a matter of months.