The arguments between locking down and herd immunity seem a bit clearer. One of the chief arguments against the former, as in some Asian countries, is that when the lockdown is released, the epidemic starts again.
True. If you have stopped or slowed the rate of spread using lockdown then you need to put into effect plans to prevent infection of the most vulnerable and release lockdown slowly such that your health service does not get overloaded by new critical cases.
One of the points about herd immunity is that NHS is in poor shape, and cannot cope with a spike now, so delay it for months, so help the virus spread now. Yoiks, do you feel lucky?
That makes no sense: how does letting it spread now delay the spike? What action have they taken to isolate the elderly (over 60? 65?) or otherwise vulnerable?
To reach herd immunity (assuming they are correct that we will have it after 60% of pop has been infected and recovered) will take at least 6 months .. and our health service will have crashed well before then.
We need to see the assumptions and figures they have been working with and explanations for the plans and actions they propose.
Half a million elderly and vulnerable dying is approx. a doubling of annual UK deaths. So in theory we can cope with that - but it is entirely unnecessary and unacceptable.