Not sure I follow. I confess I'm biased in thinking we could have locked down nursing homes and shaved a large chunk of deaths. Catch is, we should have done that in January.
I'm in the UK, I can't see this being accepted: it would be pretty hard for every care home to have space found near it to create temporary housing for all the workers. And basically imprisoning workers just because of their current job wouldn't be popular with the population -- if they quit, how do you replace them? Who would sign up?
Confining people to their own home, and locking them in their workspace are markedly different.
I'm not sure there's a better solution; financial incentives and let the workers decide if they want to do it? Care home workers have their own families and dependents too, but that could make it possible for many of them without having to lock them up against their will.
Apologies, my thought was it would not have to have been Draconian. We could have basically done a tight job on funneling access to them. Would have been expensive, but so is everything we have been doing.
Which is a large part of my point/question. Would it have been more effective than what we have been doing?
This is frustrating with a lot of news coming out that it had been spreading longer and faster than thought. Conceivable that much of the peak in deaths is the highest risk crowd having hit a saturation.
