Even the hospitals being totally over run - which has basically not happened anywhere bar India for a few weeks doesn't benefit 'everyone' to much degree - It benefits doctors and nurses and people who use hospitals alot - .y.e.t. a.g.a.i.n, the elderly and weak.
So sure, your mum benefits from slowed transmission, but would you suggest that we lock down 65m people to lower your mum's risk? You have already written multiple times that everyone is going to get covid at some point - QED, your mum too.
I'll be frank, the price simply isn't worth paying for the rest of society. We don't pay it for the flu or staff infections, (to any extent at all, let alone pro-rata to the respective risk) or a host of other transmissible conditions.
We all already bear a significant chunk of the burden of caring for the sick and elderly through our taxes - A huge proportion of which is spent on healthcare and benefits such as pensions and disability allowances.
But yeah it's not just your mum, it's all the other immucompromised who's life is always compromised whether covid exists or not. Remind me again, how many immunocomprised individuals who truely can't get vaxxed live in the UK for example?
More than 1000? More than 10,000? More than 100k?...... vs 65m? With a probably good 50m+ who are low or very low risk.
The maths just don't add up.
You're pro 'lockdown' (restrictions to slow transmission) for general society, but against it specifically for schools? - That's the problem with succumbing to fear and being irrational in risk mitigation - you get lot's of irrationality not just selected irrationality and logical decisions every where suffer.
HK is a great example - HK people get what they deserve. Excessively fearful and illogical leads to the clusterfuck we see playing out here.
You can't have your cake and eat it.
Last edited by Sage; Yesterday at 11:54 AM.