I think if lockdowns were ruthlessly policed, they wouldn't just serve as a stay of execution regarding spread but would actually start impacting re eradication. However, we probably dont have the resources to adequately police them, thanks to years of the UK being run in to the ground by spivs.
I think Sweden tried their own version of focussed protection but have now admitted it didn't work. It's such a shame because lockdown has been terrible for so many people and businesses. Rock and hard place.
I strongly disagree and I resent your belief that my basic civil liberties should be interfered with to this extent so that you don't contract an unpleasant illness. This is something I will remember next time anybody on here starts with the sanctimonious blather about free speech or ill-informed critiques concerning the authoritarian regimes of other countries like North Korea.
I accept that I am not a virologist or medical doctor and I agree that we must listen carefully to what the experts say, but experts telling me what I must and must not do is overstepping the mark in anything other than the most extraordinary circumstances. We do not have such circumstances here. This is not the Black Death. The fatalities are mostly the elderly who, sad to say, would in many cases die anyway over the winter. Others who are suffering serious symptoms or even dying include people with underlying health problems. That's evolution and Natural Selection. It's not very nice, but it's the way things are and we're all subject to it. To be blunt, this may mean that I, or one of my own children, may have to suffer and die. If that happens, I won't like it - it's terrible - but as adults we routinely have to accept things we don't like. And we all have to die anyway. What would you propose instead?
I think what we need to do is confine you, Steve and anybody else of like mind in one big sealed dome which will be sanitised to the very highest standards, using perhaps industrial isopropyl surfactant or something similar. You can then live in complete safety, but as an added measure - and I am sure Steve will agree with me - there will be a nightly curfews and everyone must wear plastic face shields, surgical masks and gloves when outdoors.
Perhaps if you and Steve could indicate your agreement, we can then get the ball rolling and get you packed off to live in complete safety, away from all us dirty people who spread disease. That will give you space to write a book about your theories on the Thomas Mair case. I anticipate that Steve will be appointed as the new community's Chief Speller, Grammarian-General and Director of Moral Deportment, but in between these pressing duties I am sure he can act as editor for your book and correct your spelling mistakes and smooth out any syntactical lapses in your erudition. David could be the community doctor, enthusiastically administering vaccines, which will be mandatory and must be taken weekly for all manner of diseases. Myster would organise a Cluedo Club. Adam could give lectures on the Bamber case and the evidence that proves Jeremy did it.
Yes, I think this is a good idea. You can be safe. I can be free. And never the twain shall meet.
As for Sweden, I don't believe that country undertook Focused Protection. They relied on building up natural immune resistance, which I still think is the correct approach, but it should be alongside restrictive measures in areas where vulnerable people are populated, such as care homes and supported living schemes. That is Focused Protection. Sweden didn't do this, relying almost-entirely on voluntary measures. I believe this meant that although some resistance will have built up in the population, it would not have been enough to completely halt the spread of whatever virus or viruses are causing this disease. Sweden is also a Scandinavian country and from late autumn onwards it gets very cold there much earlier than at more southern latitudes, and that will explain the dramatic rise in deaths over that period.