The government needs to do precisely nothing. Individuals are perfectly capable of protecting themselves.

Quite Trrumpian, sadly the numbers don't sgree with your fantasey.

Hope someone isn't type O and has vitamin D deficiency. A touch of old age and things that come with it. Perhaps then they will understand.

While people are capable of protecting themselves are they WILLING to.
If they were willing to protect themselves then infection rates would be significantly lower than they are (estimates vary quite considerably)
And you are demonstrating quite effectively that there is a not insignificant number of people who, while capable, are not WILLING to take sensible precautions.
Further, in England at least it is an offence not to wear a face covering in a shop with a first-offence fine of £200, doubling for successive offences to (I think) £6400. So not only will you find yourself running out of "local" shops, but also require deep pockets as it the fine for the offence doubles, so after 6 offences that's a total of £9600 out of pocket, and six (or more - not every shop that slings you out will get the Police to act) "local" shops that you have decided not to shop in.

And bad news for everyone:
Coronavirus immunity: Any antibodies we develop to COVID-19 seem to drop off within months. So what does this mean for a vaccine?

It's from July, so they may know more now.

And bad news for everyone:
Coronavirus immunity: Any antibodies we develop to COVID-19 seem to drop off within months. So what does this mean for a vaccine?

It's from July, so they may know more now.

They are saying that this may not be the case for vaccines. I read earlier today there is at least one that seems to give around ten times the concentrations of antibodies compared to getting infected. However I do think we are in this for at least a couple of years before seasonal death rates from viruses drop back to normal. I also wonder how much more of a problem we would have in UK had our PM not caught it?

It has long been known that virus of all sorts are very good at avoiding our best attempts to defeat them. They do so by many processes including continuous mutation, multiple points capable of infection, the weakness of our own immune system (various mechanisms there including the fact that not all anti-bodies are created equal in terms of effective half-life.)
A number of the re-infections appear to be related to early victims being infected some months later. We will have to wait and see if this trend continues, or if those more recently infected for the first time develop a more effective set of anti-bodies. (A couple of friends were "first round" victims are now being tested and observed for re-infection....)

So what if they're not willing to. It's their body. Nobody has the right to tell me to protect myself. And I can't harm you if you're taking your own precautions.

You have no right to infect anyone else and by your actions you are grave risk of doing so.

Strange, I read something somewhere that coronavirus was unusual in that it did not mutate, it had a parity check or something.

'Something, somewhere' is a very helpful source reference. But I've read the same thing: Coronaviruses in general (not just this particular one) are more stable, and have a lower - but non-zero - mutation rate than, for example, the rhinoviruses that cause the majority of common colds.

Strange, I read something somewhere that coronavirus was unusual in that it did not mutate, it had a parity check or something.

I suggest you head over and start looking at The Lancet and other medical journals instead of relying on the lies that are being promulgated by people like yourself.

20% of us are completely immune from the start. So worst case scenario the world population drops to 80% of what it is and we're all much healthier. Sounds good to me. It's called evolution and we shouldn't be interfering with it.

There is a very precise amount of evidence for your statement - ZERO

Stop believing and promulgating the dangerous LIES that are being spread around the internet

Yes, and they took some very basic precautions which restricted the spread.
The real controlled evidence is that there is at most less than 1% of the human population that have natural immunity.
As you seem to believe these FACTS come from governments are wrong I would refer you to independent sources like the BMJ, Lancet which are not influenced by governments.

Your reply to Richard just demonstrates that you do not understand a thing about the mutation of virus.
You can't claim "no mutation" in one breath then "Non-zero" in another.
It is because the virus has mutated that people have been able to trace the source of an infection in one country compared to another, for example that the initial infections in Italy were from a source within China, while those in Spain came from a source within the middle east (Iran?), and that a large proportion of the recent infections in Germany and the UK have come from Spain, while those in parts of mainland Europe are from France......