davechopoptions

@vinay: I agree with much of what you say, but believe that Covid needs too be tackled first, and then begin the slow process of changing peoples eating and exercise habits - that will take a generation at least. Covid has certainly shone a light on the underlying health issues here in the UK. For the first time that I remember in my 50 years, there have been infomercials on TV highlighting the need to change lifestyle - both to take the pressure off the NHS and to reduce the seriousness of Covid if caught. It will take time though.

@Boxmtb: But you can't avoid their subsequent interaction with parents (at greater risk) who then go on to mix with others. Unless you can 100% isolate them, then it doesn't work, and if you were to 100% isolate them, they'd be existing in an alternate lockdown.

@Boxmtb:And those under 20 with Covid are a great danger to their older friends, relatives, and other people they interact with.

@Boxmtb: And I responded to that above - it's flawed.

@vinay: Yes and fully agree that there are broader health issues - particularly in the US and UK re obesity and inactivity that need tackled head on rather than ignored, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be tackling Covid itself. Sadly the idea of a coherent approach by either of those countries' respective governments re general health is optimistic at best - look at the fat f*cks "in charge" of both... Trump believes exercise to be bad for you for Christ's sake.

@Rageingdh: Funnily enough I see it the other way round.

@vinay: When we have no other options (where we are right now) a last resort and a necessity are not mutually exclusive. Cases spoke when people mix, and slow under lockdown where the lockdown is adhered to. Problem is that often they are not - we've seen massively divergent trends in spread of cases in the UK due to differing adherence to lockdowns.

@Rageingdh: Science is theory based until fact can be established. There can therefor be a range of differing theories until fact is established. Overwhelming majorities are relevant in this context, and are not buzzwords, but simply words.

@Boxmtb: That approach would only work if those who are less at risk (but not free from risk - no-one is) were able to go through life completely removed from others at greater risk. That's not possible/practical and is exactly the reason that Schools in the UK are closing again due to a spread of infections from school to homes which then spreads further. The herd immunity theory has badly backfired in Sweden https://partner.sciencenorway.no/epidemic-health-healthcare/comparing-norway-and-sweden-norwegian-coronavirus-measures-reduced-hospitalizations-drastically/1701510 Re the Great Barrington Declaration - https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30555-5/fulltext

@Boxmtb: Saving lives shouldn't be seen differently due to different political stances. The fact that all governments from all political persuasions are implementing lockdowns out of necessity - not desire speaks volumes but some choose not to listen. No-one wants them or enjoys them, and they damage each respective country's economy almost beyond comprehension, and yet they all see it as a necessary precaution to reduce needless loss of life. Any time precautions have been relaxed (Thanksgiving, Xmas, schools re-opening, the UK government's unfortunately named "Eat Out to Help Out" campaign, gatherings of any sort) cases have spiked. In the UK, all countries have just gone to the most severe lockdown experienced so far as a result of increased cases due previously relaxed conditions.