[M T]

This article gives the argument for Boris Johnson's approach:
'Herd immunity': Why Britain is actually letting the coronavirus spread

A quick summary for the TL;DR crowd.  Isolate the high risk; let the disease spread fully through the low risk so they get it now and get antibodies; after that, the low risk are now mostly immune so they don't (1) have another epidemic & infect the high risk a year or two from now and (2) when the low risk age up to become high risk, they have immunity.

This seems very similar to "measles"/pox parties of the 1900s (since the kids were going to get German measles(rubella)/chickenpox eventually, it was better for them to get it young).

There are several issues.  1) How do you keep care-givers for the high risk people from getting the disease?  2) You are assuming that a vaccine isn't developed.  3) The low-risk are not zero-risk.  They still get quite ill and need hospitalization, which can overwhelm the hospitals.  4) Once this gets going, i doubt you can stop it.

There are advantages, mostly listed in the article.  The cost of trying to fend off the disease may be high initially, and equally high perhaps every year.  Maybe you can afford it one year, but can you afford it 10 years in row?


The one thing I've noticed that would suggest the US government is leaning this way is the order allowing to ban (or banning, I'm not sure) visitors from retirement homes.

[M T]

This article gives the argument for Boris Johnson's approach:
'Herd immunity': Why Britain is actually letting the coronavirus spread

A quick summary for the TL;DR crowd.  Isolate the high risk; let the disease spread fully through the low risk so they get it now and get antibodies; after that, the low risk are now mostly immune so they don't (1) have another epidemic & infect the high risk a year or two from now and (2) when the low risk age up to become high risk, they have immunity.

This seems very similar to "measles"/pox parties of the 1900s (since the kids were going to get German measles(rubella)/chickenpox eventually, it was better for them to get it young).

There are several issues.  1) How do you keep care-givers for the high risk people from getting the disease?  2) You are assuming that a vaccine isn't developed.  3) The low-risk are not zero-risk.  They still get quite ill and need hospitalization, which can overwhelm the hospitals.  4) Once this gets going, i doubt you can stop it.

There are advantages, mostly listed in the article.  The cost of trying to fend off the disease may be high initially, and equally high perhaps every year.  Maybe you can afford it one year, but can you afford it 10 years in row?


The one thing I've noticed that would suggest the US government is leaning this way is the order allowing to ban (or banning, I'm not sure) visitors from retirement homes.