But isn't that strategy just delaying?
I was all for lock down originally, but with the data we've now got, doesn't it suggest we should have done a partial lock down, with very strict social distancing for people over 45 and for those with under lying conditions?
Especially now, as we are entering the summer months, wouldn't we be much better off allowing mass community spread among the 30 million under 45 year old's? Otherwise aren't we just waiting for a vaccine that might not come and face the same issue each winter until it does?
Up until the end of May only 360 people under the age of 45 had died. Yesterday they NHS released data saying 95% of them had underlying conditions and the vast majority of those conditions were things they would have been aware of. So, in terms of healthy people, or those who had assumed they were healthy and under the age of 45, we are talking around 60 deaths. If 10% of the nation have had it, then if every other healthy under 45 year old in the country got it, we are talking under 600 deaths. When you look at death rates from other circumstances, it's obvious that we accept odds on activities where 600 out of 30,000,000 die, as a matter of routine, otherwise we wouldn't leave the house. So I think, we might be better off, being very strict with social distancing from people over 45 and with underlying conditions, but opening up all pubs, parks, stadiums, restaurants, schools and uni's to those under 45. Of course it will be logistically challenging (as many of the jobs needed to run those things are done by people over 45), but wouldn't it overall save more lives, as the spread would be much lower next winter?