The U.K. government made the assertion easily. From a practical case study approach it is backed by what has occurred in Sweden.
Yes, you could get the older generation/Boomers "out of your hair" that way, but you might not like the consequences. Without the Boomers' spending ('cause they'd be isolated), America is economically stagnated at best. No growth, fewer jobs, et al.
I read your article in the other thread. It is certainly possible that it could go this way, but there are so many variables and uncertainties, and the so-called "models" rely on flawed data interpretation and gathering that, again, I don't know how you or they can make that assertion at all, let alone make it "easily". Scratch that - I know you can make it easily, but that doesn't make it an accurate one. Just throw a random number like "at least four times higher" and all of a sudden its "science" and we're supposed to take it as empirical evidence. Here is a link for that scientist you quoted this from: Neil Ferguson, the scientist who convinced Boris Johnson of UK coronavirus lockdown, criticised in past for flawed research
you leftist moron... its not about the messenger its about the UK deciding the data from China is not credible. Was that an accurate report or not?
R0 or R is the infection rate number. There is no difference for this value between low risk and high risk groups. Low Risk Groups get infected just as easily as High Risk Groups. The difference is that High Risk people tend to die from the disease and Low Risk people tend to not die from the disease.
How many times are you going to wrong on this. its the number of cases one individual will spread in a population where all members are susceptible. The low risk group is is comprised of healthy people and people who are already recovered. People who may already have immunity. A group with individuals who may have immunity has a lower R0 than a group in which all people are susceptible. Additionally, within the healthy group there may be people who are just not going to get the infection. So again they low risk group is not going to necessarily have the same R0 as the high risk group. Besides it seems may experts are not using the way you are. How many articles have we seen the experts says that as the R0 may now be below one so they can begin to open. I must have read that 3 or 4 times the last few days. Unless you think the experts are saying the R0 has always been below 1...you are wrong.
Bottom line - if a person is "healthy" (or low risk) it does not reduce their chance of infecting others. Their R factor is the same as an "unhealthy" (high risk person). There is no difference in the R infection factor. At an individual level, the only change in the R infection factor is if someone is immune due to acquired immunity from previous infection or vaccination. By definition of how R is calculated in a society there is no difference between low risk and high risk people --- unless you will strictly segregate them into separate communities with no contact between the two. If you strictly segregate "high risk" people into a "housing center" with no apparent disease being introduced then their R infection rate will be low to a novel disease -- while the R infection rate for low risk people wandering freely around town with no lockdown will be high. The problem is that there is no realistic way to segregate the high risk community from the low risk community when high risk individuals must be cared for, get food, require supplies, etc. -- which makes the high R prevalent across the "low risk" community very quickly introduced into the high risk community -- killing them off. No experts have said the raw infection rate with no mitigation R0 (or Rnaught) is below one. All the scientific research has it above 2 for COVID-19 and most studies have it between 4.1 and 6.8 The effective reproduction rate R for COVID-19 has been driven below 1 when mitigation measures such as full lockdowns are taken. New York, Germany, and South Korea have driven R below 1.0 -- if it goes back up above 1.2 at an point then the lockdown measures will be re-applied.
The time it will take for this virus to run through the low risk group so that they are no longer infected and then pose no real threat to infect the high risk group will be many months from now. A vaccine is many months if not years from now. We simply cannot wait that long. We are by my observation and working knowledge of the sector two to four weeks away from a complete collapse in manufacturing. Restaurant industry is already torched. Mom and pop retail already in collapse.Friday we are going to see an unemployment number running in the high teens. That number will push past 20 percent come June 1. That's better than 30 million unemployed. There will be no V shaped recovery even if we opened it all up today. There will be no U or W shaped recovery if we go into June with a lockdown. The cascading effect of this through our economy will leave us on an ash heap if we don't begin to reopen with 2 to 4 weeks max. I don't know how much longer Americans can be told to sit by as helpless spectators of their own demise but the we've had enough of this B.S. is rapidly approaching. We are on the edge of multiple tipping points that go well beyond what this virus threat will ever do.