COVID-19 - Lockdown only the vulnerable & save economies

COVID-19 - Lockdown only the vulnerable & save economies

0 have signed. Let’s get to 500!
At 500 signatures, this petition is more likely to be featured in recommendations!

Bernhard Kirschner started this petition to Politicians and

COVID-19 - Lockdown only the vulnerable & save economies

Our leaders need to decide on possibly risking the lives of relatively few vulnerable citizens to destroying the livelihoods and futures of millions.

The below COVID-19-PLAN-B, more details at can reduce the economic, personal and social consequences of total lockdown without much effect on mortality!

Many countries are at a point that they must decide whether to start, continue or increase restrictions that could precipitate the failure of up to 30% of small business for a 3-week lockdown and up to 50% for a six-week.

Failures at such a level would cause massive unemployment, loss of homes, families destroyed, illness and depression, both economic and personal that could take a generation to recover.

We need brave wartime type leadership that decides maybe to sacrifice a few for the good of all.

PLAN-B is:

  • Lockdown for the "VULNERABLES", those over 60 or anyone or who has any of the underlying conditions described below.  These "VULNERABLES" probably account for well over 90%, of COVID-19 deaths and hospital admissions. 
  • Fourteen days or more isolation those with COVID-19 or had recent close contact with a COVID-19 confirmed person. 
  • Encouraging isolation and prevention behaviours for almost everyone else, the "LESS VULNERABLES".
  • Total freedom of work and movement for those who have recovered from COVID-19, the "NOT VULNERABLES" unless we learn that their immunity is short-lived.

Now that we are learning that COVID-19 mainly kills and hospitalises the "VULNERABLES" with underlying conditions, is it not time to introduce a less destructive and practical lockdown regime?
PLAN-B protects the "LESS VULNERABLES" and should continue to reduce the mortality numbers without the horrific economic and social consequences of a total lockdown!

We can concentrate our resources on protecting the estimated 99% of COVID-19 deaths which are from the "VULNERABLES" with underlying conditions.

There almost certainly would be a surge in COVID-19 infection amongst the "LESS VULNERABLES", who nearly all will survive COVID-19, with over 80% having no or relatively minor reactions, with an effect similar to a flu attack, who after recovery will increase the community immunity.

We should find that now, due to the education of the public of not touching your face, washing hands and limiting contact, the virus will not spread quickly.

The "LESS VULNERABLES" will quickly build immunity to the virus, limiting its spread.
In the meantime, until we have a vaccine, more information on vulnerability and or better treatment, the "VULNERABLES" will have to remain in isolation.  

Sweden stands firm over its controversial COVID-19 approach

Sweden has stood firm as at 9 April 2020 against pressure to introduce more limits on its citizens.

It has currently asked people over 70 to stay home, banned retirement homes visits, banned gatherings of more than 50 people and closed high schools and universities in mid-March.
Sweden tests only probable cases and health workers.

Per Bergfors Nyberg told Good Morning Europe that "the government's response has been focused on trying to limit the spread to elderly people."
"Sweden does not want a general lockdown because they would lose 20-25% of general healthcare workers, who are so badly needed". 

Some of Europe, 'Walking a Tightrope,' Will Loosen Coronavirus Restrictions. Source NY Times.

Why have most of our leaders encouraged by their citizens chosen what could be described as an extreme response without all the facts?

The below might explain their reaction to plague.

"Due to some deeply evolved responses to disease, fears of contagion lead us to become more conformist and tribalistic, and our leaders have been driven to a misplaced "better safe than sorry logic "and reactions.

Trying to understand the value of different containment policies, we might question whether our thoughts are the result of rational reasoning, or whether they might have been shaped by an ancient response that evolved millennia before the discovery of germ theory."


What are the underlying conditions?

  • ·         Chronic lung disease or moderate to severe asthma.
  • ·         Serious heart conditions
  • ·         Conditions that can cause a person to be immunocompromised, including cancer treatment, smoking, bone marrow or organ transplantation, immune deficiencies, poorly controlled HIV or AIDS, and prolonged use of corticosteroids and other immune weakening medications.
  • ·         Severe obesity (body mass index [BMI] of 40 or higher)
  • ·         Diabetes
  • ·         Chronic kidney disease and who are undergoing dialysis
  • ·         Liver disease


Other Suggested Options

There have been suggestions for 3 to 5 days no lockdown, then 8 to 21 days lockdown, but although this may be better for our mental health, this will hardly help the economy. It could lead to massive physical contact from crowding in the no lockdown periods, resulting in a sudden surge of illness that might overrun hospitals a few weeks later.

Additionally, in the above option there is no suggestion that the "VULNERABLES" will remain in lockdown in the free period, so if the "VULNERABLES" mix, the death rates will still be high.

Under PLAN-B the people know that the lockdown is over for most, there should be not such a rush on shops.

How the lockdown would affect workers

Under PLAN-B those classed as "VULNERABLE" who cannot work at home would still be able to claim the benefits currently on offer.

Under PLAN-B or similar, the "LESS VULNERABLE" workers who do not have underlying conditions or are under 60 may wish to remain under lockdown. However, they may not be able to claim from the government all the benefits.

In Australia, USA, UK and other countries where there are centralised medical records this would mean that workers might need doctors or official certificate describing their status. These certificates would specify who is "LESS VULNERABLE" or "NOT VULNERABLE" to work or "VULNERABLES not to work and claim government compensation.

Able workers may wish to telecommute, as will many "LESS VULNERABLE", who would instead remain under lockdown.

Changing the present mindset means that schools can reopen, parents can get back to work, and all businesses that wish to can operate.

A working economy will find it easier to create the resources to support those under lockdown, as well as create the resources to help the ill suffering from COVID-19

The alternative to PLAN-B or similar where there is total lockdown is massive economic disruption throwing people into poverty, homelessness, even hunger, economic and personal depression, possibly leading to civil unrest and barbarism.

Many countries have offered economic aid to their citizens of around 10% of their annual Gross National Product that will be paid for by inflation, heavy taxes and disruption.
These payments would be reduced considerably under the suggested PLAN-B.

Petition and website conceived by Bernhard Kirschner, aged 79 and who would have to remain in lockdown even under PLAN-B. I am horrified at the current suffering caused by indiscriminate lockdowns on workers, the destruction of a lifetime of building small businesses, general emotional stress, and the damage to the future of so many.

0 have signed. Let’s get to 500!
At 500 signatures, this petition is more likely to be featured in recommendations!