The last sentence is spot on, we have ruined the lives of the many to save the few.
Originally Posted by: springsunshine
Warning: assumptions ahead!
Say, for simplicity's sake, that we've 5% immunity now, i.e. we've actually had around 3.3 million cases.
Gavin D posted these figures earlier:
0-19 - 11
20-39 - 152
40-59 - 1,706
60-79 - 8,310 (1 is awaiting verification)
80+ - 11205
A simple 20x multiplication to assume everyone gets it gives:
0-19 - 220
20-39 - 3040
40-59 - 34120
60-79 - 166200
80+ - 224100
A total of just over 420000 - not far off the initial herd immuniy estimates.
There are 3281955 over 80s (or were, as per the ONS estimates), so you'd be losing around 7% of them.
Now, from a purely economic point of view it makes sense to just let it rip. Take the losses of economically inactive and already ill people, save the considerable costs of looking after them and gain an economic advantage as the rest of the world continues to struggle (at least until a vaccine is developed). It'd rejuvenate the housing market too and we could all - well, those of us left - get back to normal by the end of the year. Economically, it'd be brilliant.
Society wise? Not so much. And that's why we had the lockdown, of course, as in addition to the raw numbers above there would be lots of extra people dying as the NHS imploded... not to mention the ethical aspects of letting hundreds of thousands die.
Edited by user
04 May 2020 17:40:01
|
Reason: Not specified