i want to be clear.

we know that this virus only targets people that are old, or people that have underlying conditions. we know that the probability of getting substantively sick if you're young and healthy is about 1/100000 - which doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but those are exceedingly good odds.

you can't let examples in the media define public policy. you have to look at the data. one young person getting sick doesn't mean anything, in the face of the probabilities, and you're stupid if you can't figure that out.

so, we essentially have a choice in how to deal with it:

(1) we could aggressively act to prevent the vulnerable from getting the virus, and more or less let it run rampant in the general population. you would still have those 1/100000 young people that get sick, but that's manageable - that's comparable to the flu. the downside (arguably. not everybody will see it that way. my own grandmother is a loner that would rather avoid people.) is that the elderly will have to avoid direct human contact for a while.

(2) you could force everybody to stay inside to try to prevent the spread of transmission. in theory, the upside to this is that the elderly will not have to be as strictly isolated (it does not take much insight to realize this will not hold in reality, and it hasn't up to now). the downside is mass unemployment, economic carnage and the potential for generational revolt.

our governments appear to have decided that (1) is immoral and have chosen (2) instead.

but, they are wrong.

(2) will not prevent transmission to the elderly; that is naive, and we have more than enough data to demonstrate it. but, advocates are failing einstein's definition of insanity - the more this fails, the more they call for it to intensify. only (1) can accomplish that task.

there is a window, still, for governments to course correct.

but, they are badly failing, right now. and, we should expect this to rip through the elderly population like nothing we've ever seen.