Here's a scenario I'm curious about. Chickenpox parties for young and healthy people who are then isolated. Use heavy suppression to make sure there are ventilators available for them should they be needed.
My gut feeling is that this could create herd immunity at small cost.
Natural spread is way inferior to artificial spread. By doing it artificially you can control exactly who gets it, can monitor them more easily, and can prevent the vulnerable from getting it. And you can very precisely control the rate of spread.
It's a bit like saying a controlled burn can stop a forest fire - it's true, but it can easily get lost in the scale when you have an Australian or Californian situation and half the state is on fire.
If you don't sign you are to practice social distancing for a year meaning you will be excluded from most of society. How's that for an incentive? You see that is what the article proposes everyone should do.
Assuming they know they’re vulnerable they presumably wouldn’t go to these parties. However that’s quite an assumption, particularly among young people.
Because shutting down the economy will kill people, too. It will also decrease quality of life for everyone, and disrupt families, communities, cities and countries.
I don't even know what the best course of action is, but there are trade-offs that a lot of people here seem to be ignoring.
My gut feeling is that this could create herd immunity at small cost.