Originally Posted by
Expressflight
So people like me have to "take themselves out of society" (and perhaps you'd like to define what exactly you mean by that) for an indefinite period all because you (for example) "pass it onto 100 people (in order to) reach herd immunity far quicker". Of those 100 people, and of course you need them to pass it on to another 100 etc., how many will need admission to hospital, need to go on ventilators and some die for you to reach your "herd immunity" targets? I suppose you will say that herd immunity by definition means that many people will die but that is a price worth paying to achieve that end.
I live in a low infection region (at the moment) so I assess, as do most of my friends, that I can currently carry out many 'normal' activities such as shopping, going to restaurants that I trust and spending a night or two at an hotel (50th anniversary coming up). That all helps me to stay sane but if this changes and the disease is rife locally, which would likely be the case under your plan, I would probably assess that such activities are unwise.
It's odd that I cannot find any other major country that is following your plan - I wonder why that is. Sweden tried it to some extent but their weekly infection rate now is still higher than that of Italy, Germany, Norway and Greece so after six months it doesn't seem to have worked yet. How long do you think it would take in the UK?
Yeah, you’re still not getting it are you. Your, and your friends’ assessment is exactly what everybody should be doing. Using your own judgement and doing what you feel safe doing. Now if 60 million people could do the same thing, we wouldn’t need government restrictions.
As for your last comment, have a look at the economic impact on Sweden and the U.K. and you’ll find an answer.