Marty___Mcfly
I see your wicked plan - I’m a junglist.
- Sep 14, 2011
- 2,251
I understand the original objective of reducing overall demand on the NHS by locking down everyone, but we are well past that now. I also understand that if we had another spike we would be back in that situation, but I'm not sure that is likely given what has happened in other countries which have begun to unlock.
At this point however, it seems to be from the statistics that the virus is only a significant risk to the elderly and those with a pre-existing condition.
Recent figures showed 166 people under 40 had passed away. 91% of all cases have had a pre-existing condition. That could mean only 17 of the under 40's deaths were people with no pre-existing conditions. If the number is that low, I do not understand the logic behind not lifting restrictions for those who are at such a low risk.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52543692
I appreciate the impact of every deaths upon those involved, however, if we were looking at the impact on the younger and healthy alone as a problem, with those sorts of death figures, no lock down measures would be in place. In this context, it would seem reasonable to remove restrictions on those below a certain age with no underlying conditions.
The remainder of the population who may be at higher risk could be advised of that risk and advised to stay at home if they want to reduce their risk. This could be left to individuals to decide, e.g. some at the lower end of the age range who are fit and healthy may decide to get back out there.
Given the risk to younger / healthy people is so low it does seem that an approach more akin to the current Swedish model could work for them, i.e. some social distancing where practical but get all businesses other than those that involve large gatherings back open. And schools etc. I just can't see any significant risk in that, provided the overall spread is at a level which is not beyond HHS capacity.
I remain very concerned about those at high-risk, but I cannot see the logic of restricting the rest of the population at this stage.
At this point however, it seems to be from the statistics that the virus is only a significant risk to the elderly and those with a pre-existing condition.
Recent figures showed 166 people under 40 had passed away. 91% of all cases have had a pre-existing condition. That could mean only 17 of the under 40's deaths were people with no pre-existing conditions. If the number is that low, I do not understand the logic behind not lifting restrictions for those who are at such a low risk.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52543692
I appreciate the impact of every deaths upon those involved, however, if we were looking at the impact on the younger and healthy alone as a problem, with those sorts of death figures, no lock down measures would be in place. In this context, it would seem reasonable to remove restrictions on those below a certain age with no underlying conditions.
The remainder of the population who may be at higher risk could be advised of that risk and advised to stay at home if they want to reduce their risk. This could be left to individuals to decide, e.g. some at the lower end of the age range who are fit and healthy may decide to get back out there.
Given the risk to younger / healthy people is so low it does seem that an approach more akin to the current Swedish model could work for them, i.e. some social distancing where practical but get all businesses other than those that involve large gatherings back open. And schools etc. I just can't see any significant risk in that, provided the overall spread is at a level which is not beyond HHS capacity.
I remain very concerned about those at high-risk, but I cannot see the logic of restricting the rest of the population at this stage.
