If the govt believes there is a genuine alternative to herd immunity, implementable within some acceptable timescale, it needs to tell us. Otherwise it needs to tell us how it plans to manage the process of reaching herd immunity as quickly as feasible without NHS swamping.

I think that if the UK govt had a genuine alternative to managed herd immunity it wld hv told us by now or some other govt in the world wld hv said.

Domestic eradication then quarantining & awaiting a vaccine may work for NZ & Taiwan. It has no chance of working for the UK - that's why the govt moved out of its "containment" phase.

It appears no vaccine is plausible within any relevant timescale. We'll be at herd immunity long before 18 mths hv passed unless we accept incredible restrictions on our lives for a huge period.

It appears no game-changing therapy is close enough for major govts to say we need to wait just a short time to see if they work.

So since domestic eradication is infeasible, awaiting a vaccine is unconscionable & no therapy is imminent, unless the fatality rate is much higher than we've been told the only plausible path is managed herd immunity.

We *cld* try to manage herd immunity via a v slow path with aggressive social distancing, apps & an army of contact tracers. But if we are going for herd immunity anyway, it's better to get it done quicker not slower, provided only that NHS capacity is not breached.

The above relies on my hving interpreted the govt's position correctly. Maybe the fatality rate is much higher than it's said & it doesn't want to tell us or a treatment is imminent but it doesn't want to get false hopes up? If it has some reason the above's wrong it must now say