Originally Posted by
Paul852
It seems to me much more sensible, and certainly much less damaging to the quality of life of the majority of the population, to focus on isolating those susceptible groups to a level where their infection rates are within what the NHS can handle. With the advantage that the younger population will be exposed to the virus, develop resistance, and then be in a better position to assist those who succumb more seriously.
It might be, but in fact there are way too many unknowns to be sure which approach is best. This is the why when the government says its approach is guided by science opponents pop up and say "can't be - this scientist over here says they're doing it wrong". Reality is there is nowhere near a scientific consensus on anything other than "we don't know" (if they're being honest).
Just for starters:
* we don't know if this pandemic will come in several waves like Spanish flu or if it will go away after one wave like SARS (if we can get R<1)
* we don't know how long resistance lasts following exposure, some say it may be months (based on monkey experiments with SARS I think), some suggest only weeks (reported re-infections)
* we don't know who is vulnerable or why - e.g. currently a lot of scientific argument as to whether hypertension is the risk factor or if the risk is the drugs commonly used to treat it, or if it's a total red herring
* we don't know the long term effects of exposure, many (most?) recovered SARS patients have chronic lung problems and lipid metabolism changes, many years later, for COVID19 we don't know yet, but early survivors are known not to have recovered full lung function, yet, maybe they will in future, or maybe not
* we know that some corona viruses in animals lie dormant after first exposure and recovery and then go on to kill years later, no one knows what this one will do years from now