I’m fairly informed on a lot of things but public health and epidemiology are not among them. So I have a serious question about why we (and other countries) are responding to the corona virus pandemic the way we are.
As I understand it, the virus can be deadly for the older population, those who are less healthy, those with underlying medical conditions, the immuno-compromised, and so forth. But it is fairly benign for the younger, more healthy population. I also understand that, as more become infected, “community immunity” is likely to develop. Finally, I understand that the thinking is that at this point, it’s impossible to prevent wide infection, but that we are trying to slow it down, to “flatten the curve,” to prevent our medical system from being overwhelmed -— as has happened in Italy with tragic results.
Assuming all of that is true — and please correct me it it’s not — I don’t understand why we’re shutting down everything and, in effect self quarantining even if we don’t have the virus. Yes, I get that we don’t want younger, healthier carriers infecting vulnerable members of the population, but is this the most efficient way to accomplish that goal? Broadway, restaurants, sports teams, cultural events, the travel industry, are all essentially shut down. The economy is likely already in a recession, or heading there. We’re spending billions to enhance the safety net to protect workers who can’t work, probably eventually will bail out industries harmed by the shutdown, etc.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to isolate and protect the vulnerable population, and let the rest of society get on with their lives? Please don’t attack me — I’m not being callous, I’m not saying their lives and comfort don’t matter. I’m actually in the vulnerable population, being over 65. I’m thinking I, and they, would probably actually be safer this way. The government could pay for them to have nursing care if necessary, to be fed, to have a safe place to stay if they don’t have one, to replace their income if they can’t work from home — sure, it would cost billions, but we’re spending billions anyway. It seems to me the vulnerable would actually be safer this way, and there would be less disruption to everyone else, and less impact on the economy. The pandemic would run its course, perhaps even more quickly, and there would not have been as much harm to society as a whole, including the vulnerable population
There must be a good reason not to do this, because I haven’t seen anyone even suggest it, in the United States or anywhere else. Can someone better informed than I explain it?