"We have a choice of taking some small risk now, or face the certainty of a much worse problem later. Time to accept some risk and do something."
Agreed 100%.
What about simply letting the people who young and healthy or immune go about their lives?
Letting the young and healthy get sick and then become immune is essentially using an attenuated human instead of an attenuated virus. Same outcome though.
This would both build herd immunity and keep the economy going.
This seems to the Swedish plan. What I have noticed with this plan is that a lot of vulnerable Swedes have died from this plan. I think we can do better.
Sweden is not doing too much testing either. I am not sure if the UK is a good comparison as they are not really in lockdown at the moment. I think the better comparison is to Norway and Denmark.
> Government guidance is that people who are over 70, have an underlying health condition or are pregnant, are strongly advised to limit social interaction
What's interesting is that Sweden has no quarantine and has been averaging around 400 to 500 new cases daily while UK quarantined everyone and has 4000 to 5000 new cases daily.
The interesting thing is that the UK has 60 million people while Sweden has 10 million people.
So according to those numbers...how effective is quarantine?
Just before I get into discussing this idea, I'm curious how sure you are about it. The way you describe it it's pretty much a simple solution that just needs implementing.
How do you know exactly what the outcome would be?
Agreed 100%.
What about simply letting the people who young and healthy or immune go about their lives?
Letting the young and healthy get sick and then become immune is essentially using an attenuated human instead of an attenuated virus. Same outcome though.
This would both build herd immunity and keep the economy going.