Impossible?
No it isn't. Instead of spunking billions on dodgy PPE providers, tests that aren't reliable, furlough payments etc dedicate that money to the vunerable you have to shield, care homes and staff to man the nightingale hospitals which should be covid-19 cases only.
And where do these staff come from?hmmm?
And who is vulnerable? Every person above 65?
Every BAME person?
Everybody overweight?
Everybody with asthma?
Everybody with autoimmune diseases?
Everybody with diabetes?
Etc etc
Ok so we keep them all at home in isolation. And their partners too. Because they would need to isolate also. So that’s two household salaries gone now. How do we pay for that? And who replaces those people in their work? What happens to the businesses that no longer have enough staff? Not because they are off sick, it because they are shielding?
And kids obviously can’t go to school either, if a parent is shielding.
So it’s millions. Many millions.
Yes, lots of people in those categories won’t be at high risk. But lots will still be at moderate risk, and if they aren’t shielded exposing millions of people at moderate risk will lead to many more hospitalisations and potentially the complete overwhelming of hospitals, even if it doesn’t necessarily translate into deaths.
Obviously overwhelming hospitals leads to far more cancelled critical operations, non-crit8cal operations, investigative surgery etc etc. And ultimately far more deaths.
It’s such a simplistic argument to say ‘shield the vulnerable’ and while that is the best people can come up, is it any wonder that lockdowns are still talked about?
Lockdowns are terrible. I don’t want one. I don’t like them. They are deeply deeply flawed but it’s easy to bang on about it from the sidelines if you don’t have a viable alternative to offer as a suggestion. And so far, nobody, not the ‘opposing view’ scientists, the good folk on here like yourself, media commentators, politicians etc have actually offered a viable alternative, in my opinion.