Quote Originally Posted by WES View Post
But I'm not suggesting we lock them or anyone else away, I'm suggesting we allow them to decide the risk they are prepared to take.

And your moral perspective excludes the issues faced by people in the non-vulnerable category. Why is it bad to think about people in the way you describe but it's ok to ignore the impact of lockdown on mental health, domestic abuse, cancer patients etc etc ?

My main issue with our approach to Covid is that we don't look at it holistically, we seem to care only about Covid statistics rather than the impact of lockdown generally.
It doesn't exclude people in the non-vulnerable category at all, it simply takes the view that to present vulnerable people with the stark choice between significant risk of death from this virus or self-imposed isolation is pretty inhumane when it is within the power of the rest of us to do things to help mitigate that risk.
I'm not a lockdown fanatic, but neither am I of the opinion that it is feasible or reasonable simply to return to the status quo ante and let the more vulnerable members of our society face that choice. If you're talking about a holistic approach, you can't have one without a rather more sophisticated approach to the most vulnerable than you have outlined.