It's not just a question of paying for the care for vulnerable persons. But young people sometimes also want to see their parents at least a few times a year, even if they aren't vulnerable and can care for themselves.
Wouldn't having a nurse or some other full time trained person present be more effective than anything at helping keep "young people" from getting too close? And if these "young people" are out of control, how does lockdown help anyway?
people who are affected are not just 90yo that need a nurse, there's a ton of people in their 60s and 70s (>2% chance of death by covid) who live a normal life and don't want to be locked in a room and cut from everyone else.
The lockdown helps because it protects people who don't care too, by relying on those who do _just a bit_.
Sadly, the option of segregating all at-risk people is not reasonably feasible.
As for those who don’t want to be locked in a room - sounds like they want to have it both ways - just the right amount of risk reduction and a sooner path to living their lives freely. But why is their desire for a normal life more important than others’ desire? Why should others have to give up their freedoms and endure an extended lockdown to enable them, instead of living their lives freely now?
but I wrote "in their 60s and 70s", replacing people 50-59 with 70-79 will obviously give you different results.
I agree with you, people want to have it both ways and it's easy to get upset with them, but that's how the world is, and if the healthcare system gets overwhelmed because of people who don't care everyone else still suffers.
For polio, only 0.5 % of those who contracted polio had nervous system symptoms. Of this small minority that developed muscle weakness, about 2 to 5 percent of children and 15 to 30 percent of adults died.
Still, it was a frightening disease, until it was eradicated by vaccines (except where it wasn't: now that covid has brought the world's focus back to vaccines, we should do something about that, too.)