That the death of a million+ retirees will have no impact on the economy is questionable.
They have the greatest discretionary spending power, having paid off mortgages, seen kids grow up, and are able to monetise their property to increase retirement income. They also (incidentally) are the engine for employment in the NHS and care services.
However the option to allow the virus to spread uncontrollably to achieve herd immunity should be evaluated.
1st question - how long will it take. ~ 0.5m people are infected with covid now, The NHS is creaking. Assume everything reopens and infections quickly increase to (say) 3m. Herd immunity may need infection of 65-80%, ~50m people, ~12-15 weeks.
2nd question - what happpens to the NHS. It will be utterly overwhelmed by a factor of 5-8 times. All health care will stall. Relatively minor injuries may be fatal. Those needing treatment for any reason will die for want of basic drugs and care. An explicit policy of euthanasia may be more humane than the suffering that will otherwise happen.
3rd question - vaccine. Assuming the Astra Zeneca vaccine gets approval there is some prospect that within ~2 months the elderly and vulnerable will become an an ever smaller burden on the NHS with more normal society being resumed.
4th question - is let it rip feasible. It is, but when people see the impact on NHS facilities it may radically change behaviours to avoid social contact anyway. The benefit to the economy may simply prove illusory. Rather than resolving covid quickly, 12-15 weeks could extend to 6-12 months.
Ignoring moral arguments - I am something of a pragmatist anyway, I can understand why many think "let it rip" is a quick solution. With the vaccine on the horizon it is entirely the wrong choice.
|
