1) If you believe the media does NOT exaggerate and the prospect of a global plague could, indeed, lead to over 50 million deaths, the current Lockdown philosophy makes great sense.
2) If you think this is a totally trivial virus much like the average flu season, in which case do Herd Immunity as examined below.
3) My "middle" opinion; protect and treat the vulnerable FAR better, spend the money on constructing strict wards in hospitals, providing brilliant PPE, focusing on care homes and hospices - be aware this is a trivial virus for the vast majority - 95% - and concentrate on really effective effort on the 5%.

Now we've chosen ROUTE ONE, I agree we should continue with full lockdown gradually easing, masks etc. But I fear the repercussions of lockdown will be far worse than CoronaVirus would have been.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/a...A#Echobox=1588187071

Route 3. For route 1 the "cure" is worse than the disease, in terms of economic damage.

This is a question of how we want to lead our lives, compared with how the governments, driven by the media, have forced us to hide in our caves rather than living with a small risk.

Flu comes around every year and kills 20-50,000 people in the UK. So we should do a "lockdown" every year to prevent those deaths, yes? Or no - because the media does not inflate those flu deaths.

Likewise alcohol and tobacco definitely kill people. So do cars. So we should ban all of those things, to save lives. Or accept the risk in exchange for personal freedoms and enjoyment.

78,000 people die each year from smoking in the UK alone, and it puts a massive strain on the NHS. Why are we not banning smoking? (I am not suggesting we should) Probably because of the tax revenue and tobacco lobby - a balance of risk of death with economic interest has clearly been made. A totally wrong balance has been struck with coronavirus.

The route that most countries has followed appears to be disastrously wrong.

And "lockdown", which everyone now uses, is not even a word. The correct word is "curfew" but no politician will say that because of the negative connotation of removing civil liberties.