3 ms·

It seems an eminently sensible suggestion to me. Invest heavily in shielding and treatment for the vulnerable and vaccine development, while allowing the non-vu

• jamienicol 6y ago
  Sweden's economy was also hit hard. Like many young people I don't want to catch covid. I'm not "shielding", but even if there were no restrictions in place I'd still be working from home and contributing far less to the economy
  • andybak 6y ago
    I'm (only) 50 but have no intention of going inside a pub or restaurant or non-essential shop until vaccination is widespread. The economy was going to take a hit whatever so pretending everything would be normal if we shipped all the old people off somewhere is just silly. In reality that strategy would have been as imperfectly implemented as the current one and the outcomes would have been similarly flawed. The clue is the fact that no government on the planet has seriously considered it persuing it for any length of time. It does not withstand scrutiny above the level that random commentators on internet message boards can provide.
• ddalex 6y ago
  The problem is that it's not easy to determine who is vulnerable. I have a 39 yo former colleague who passed away due to the coronavirus, previously in peak athletic form with no known health problems. How would you know who to isolate? Plus, it's not just about death, but life long life quality impairments due to tissue necrosis, especially the lungs. Sure, probably single digit percent of people will develop this, but why risk ?
  • nickpp 6y ago
    Because there always will be a risk, and a cost. Protecting everybody from everything at 100% is just impossibly expensive.