Did you read my reply?
I'm very much for protecting those who may die from the virus. I literally posted that to you.
But maybe passing around the demographics is inevitable rather than preventable ? Without a vaccine then people will keep getting it, you can't change that.
This is what I've taken from your posts and correct me if I'm wrong (also, the figures I'll use are completely fictitious just to help the explanation):
- You say the average age of deaths is 82 and the largest +expected deaths is the Over-65 range.
- Expected deaths in the Under-44 range is similar to previous years.
So you think we should shield and isolate the 'danger' demographic of the Over-65's whilst we let the other demographics carry on with life as normal because the expected deaths for those ages isn't much different to previous years.
However, what if say the expected deaths for U-44's in
July 2019 was
20k and the deaths for
July 2020 was
22k, but the % of those deaths in
July 2020 was enormously built up on COVID related deaths? Is is still fine to let that demographic go back to normal life whilst shielding the Over-65's?
Just because the overall expected deaths hasn't differed much between years doesn't mean it's okay for that demographic to be left alone.
Unless you know what that % is and you've used it to back up your points. Not really sure as you rarely post any data to support your posts.