Thank you for saying this @AndrewNoymer. The "shield sensitive groups" strategy is also know as the "age-targeted" or "herd immunity" strategy. In the US, proponents are @MartinKulldorff & @SWAtlasHoover. 1/ https://twitter.com/AndrewNoymer/status/1309622193114947584

Of course @SWAtlasHoover's presence at the right hand of @realDonaldTrump has made this de facto national strategy, but @MartinKulldorff's interview with @jacobinmag shows it's an idea with broader appeal. 2/

What's not to like? It gives permission to most to go about their lives, while the rest of us worry about the old, the sick and the vulnerable. 3/

It's also being staged as the "taboo" that must be broken, the idea of shielding sensitive groups is too radical for the mainstream, it has the frisson of the bold, but heretical idea. 4/

If you don't support the concept, you're for full, unrelenting lockdowns, don't care about the economy, mental health, children or other diseases. 5/

You also don't care about the poor, vulnerable communities, etc. because the effects of lockdowns come down hard among these groups. 6/

Of course you can reject the shield the vulnerable strategy for the reasons you suggest and others (e.g. can you truly identify "the vulnerable" and if you could how would you practically sequester them?) AND think AT THE SAME TIME that draconian measures are wrong as well. 7/

What CAN we do? If we had a REAL national strategy, we could target our efforts where the virus is, using active surveillance to figure out where infections are spreading and test-tracing-isolating at smaller scales. 8/

This would mean a massive increase in testing capacity, human resources to do all this, huge communications/social mobilization effort to build trust in communities. 9/

It would also mean addressing other needs of people at risk, not just SARSCOV2, but how they'll put food on the table, deal with rent, take care of their kids when going to work is the only option for some. You can't ask anyone to social distance, or isolate without support. 10/

It would be bottom-up public health, working with communities to help them keep safe, address their issues. It is NOT top-down lockdown-centric even if targeted closures might have to happen in high-incidence areas, but you can do this w the support needed to ease the pain. 11/

People are angry, frustrated, depressed. Acknowledging that is key. There is a huge displacement of emotions ONTO public health experts & officials, rather than a realization that our national strategy has failed because those in power have waved the white flag, as you say. 12/