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.
With Covid, the risk of death per 1000 in the 70-79 category is 8 (approx 10 for males). Now if your chances of dying whenever you got into an aeroplane were 1 in 100, you'd call that a pretty significant risk of death, wouldn't you? It'd probably make you pretty wary of flying, no?
So yes. 'Significant'.
Your analogy is mendacious. The risk isn't a 1 in ahundred chance of dying if you get in the aeroplane, your risk is 1 in a hundred of dying if the aeroplane crashes. As you well know, 1 in a 100 70-79 year olds haven't died because they left the house.
The risk is infinitesimal.
That's correct. Our hospitals customarily operate at or near capacity at all times.
The point is that if there is a significant spike in ICU admissions, then you get over 100% capacity in no time at all - which neans that people are no longer receiving adequate care and significant numbers of preventable deaths start occurring very quickly.
Of course. This is f@cking complicated stuff and literally nobody has 'got it right' because 'getting it right' in this context is a pipe dream. It's a constant weighing of negatives against one another while trying to retain basic humanitarian principles. I don't care what political perspective you come from, but I pity any government of any political shade that is faced with making these choices.