Quote Originally Posted by Herbert Augustus Chapman View Post
I'm not good at stats etc but in our population I'd say we have, out of a population of 60 million about 30 million are between 20 and 50 which, in anyone's book is an age range that death would be considered extremely untimely.

Are we saying that 1% of that age range in the UK would have perished in herd immunity? Is that not 300,000? I'm not sure how that would have played with the electorate.
Just to clarify my thought, the CFR (Case Fatality Ratio is 0.5%, although I've seen 0.13% - 0.2% from credible sources. I'm going with 0.5%. That's 5 out of 1,000 with 4 either over the age of 70 and/or have a co-morbidity So the remaining 1 out of 1000 is outside that data set This is 0.1%, not 1%, which puts your example with a death rate of 30,000, not 300,000. Also, using your examples assumes 100% contract the virus, which in this medical field of communicable disease is way, way too high if not impossible. Also, that 30,000 is over a life span, not in the next few months. I wonder how many in that 30 million die is the regular old flu or any communicable diseases?

This is still something to be of utmost concern, it's no picnic to deal with and you can die. However, there are plenty of scary bugs out there and any one can get you. This is one of them, but it appears that it's not more than the rest. It is highly contagious, but not all that deadly in the grand scheme.

So the move, it seems to me, is to greatly restrict who the old folks come into contact with. Retirement homes should have visiting procedures in place. Those at risk with preconditions should be educated and THEY are the ones who should restrict where they go so they aren't in crowds and THEY should wear masks. We also need 1) preventatives that build our immune system like zinc. 2) Safe sanitary practices and 3) Develop a protocol that lessens the severity and length once contracted. Maybe hydroxychloroquine is 3), maybe not. But that's the route to take, imo.