shevtheblue
Well-Known Member
There is 100% something to the immunocompromised argument, some of it maybe be for reasons out of one's control such as previous illness or maybe even a genetic order, but i don't think we can rule out malnutrition due to the large gap between the haves, and the have-not's - this has always existed. They then move into the vulnerable category, unless the government can provide some kind of immune system booster shots that work almost immediately? We def can't do this for all time, but i don't think that's what the aim was. As far as i can see it was just to get it to a point where it can be handled efficiently until a vaccine is ready. Have the capacity to manage the vulnerable to death and the vulnerable to getting very ill, while it slowly passes through the population of people who won't really feel it badly, like me (i think).There is overwhelming evidence that the risks of viral transmission are far higher in enclosed environments with risk largely borne by the immune compromised. I agree with your point that the lockdown was rationalised on the basis of protecting the vulnerable but that does not make it appropriate for all time, for all people.
People can be altruistic and selfish. Humanity is very much underrated but at the moment is extremely confused and fearful. I am grateful there are people like you who try and work it out even if you come to a different conclusion.
There are a lot of people who would do what's right, but you look around the world and how selfishness seems to have taken over large parts of society, i can't see how we could protect the people who need protecting from the ones who only care about themselves.
If we all came to the same conclusion, nowt would get done Marv :)