Originally Posted by
Paul852
88% of the deaths in Italy have been aged 70+, 96% have been aged 60+. Presumably the vast majority of the 4% younger had chronic conditions.
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.
That is my point as well, although you'll get a ****storm the moment you propagate that in public. I remember in my youth, in a very civilised European country, when some other kid contracted the measles, chicken pox or even mumps, our parents with the schools consent organised parties. Most kids contracted and surmounted the disease, developed immunity and their immune system grew a little stronger. There were the odd victims, certainly, and when it concerned your family you would most probably criticise this procedure. But for the overall society and the economy it was the sensible thing to do. Today we do not accept even one random victim, as old or frail it might be, as we call ourselves civilised, but we accept the collateral damage of huge lockdowns. Whatever victims of these lockdown measures could appear, other than the COV-19, we will probably not put them in context, we accept those however for the assumed "good of the society". (Or was it for the reelection??)