Tim Drayton wrote: and the risk of dying for anyone in good health under the age of 50 is negligible, I don't understand the concern about the number of cases. The faster it spreads the quicker most people will become immune and the virus will then disappear. Essentially the same result as the mass forced vaccination the prospect of which has big pharma salivating with profits of at least $700,000,000,000 beckoning, except it is natural, has no side effects and is free. All you need to do is ensure that the vulnerable are protected.
Shortened lifespans of the over 50 are not less valuable than those over 50. For your 'solution' to work it REQUIRES a certain minimum number of deaths / shortened lifespans. This number can be calculated using IOFR and what herd immunity threshold is for this virus.
Using the lowest guess for both the numbers crunch as follows
IFR 0.1% , herd immunity threshold 60% = 4,200,000 REQUIRED global dead to reach herd immunity.
Using high end numbers but certainly not the highest still being mooted for IFR
IFR 0.7%, herd immunity threshold 90% = 44,100,000 REQUIRED global dead to reach herd immunity.
And we still do not even know if herd immunity is possible. Somewhere between 4 and 44 million required global deaths to reach a solution that we still do not know yet if it possible, is what you are saying you do not ' I don't understand the concern about'.
If herd immunity is possible and
if a vaccine can be found, both unknown currently, then exactly the same result can be achieved with massively less REQUIRED deaths. Can you understand that ?