@muddyriver Define vulnerable. Given there are still cases where young people without co-morbidities die. What mortality rate is acceptable?
I suspect playing God with decisions like these is a lot more difficult for politicians than making them from the comfort of a keyboard (not having a go at you BTW).
Evidence to date is that any solution that relies on everyone doing the right thing for the common good is doomed to fail.
Out walking last night almost everyone had slipped straight back into social distancing but with more masks worn but to counter that you have the selfish pricks who fled Auckland ahead of the lockdown because of; ya know the inconvenience of it all.
I hear this.
When you are deciding an acceptable mortality rate, please include a close family member(Wife/Husband or kid) as a death as one of these and still see if that mortality rate is acceptable.
So why not reduce the speed limit to 40 MPH. After all this would save lives. Or ban rugby as this will protect people from injury some serious that will affect a person for life. Or close down all unhealthy food outlets. Let the nanny state go wild. The other option is education or advise and accepting variations in life where our rights and freedoms are maintained. We are all different and especially the young don't want to be treated like children who can't enjoy life.
My view is giving up our right and freedoms to MAYBE buy a little safety is a recipe for disaster. It just won't end. Already the economy has been ruined. And lives with it. I'm older now. Its up to me to protect myself. Not ruin healthy law abiding citizens lives to maybe protect me. I can stay inside and wear a mask and self isolate if I wish