That would be absurd. In the past 10 months (up to 18th December), 1,410 people under the age of 50 have died of coronavirus, including those who were already terminally ill. Once the over-50s are substantially vaccinated, and also will almost certainly be unable or at least very unlikely to pass it on, then there is no need for another 8 months or so lockdown to save so relatively few lives.
That's 52% average over the three weeks between dose 1 and dose 2. The vaccine starts to work gradually. When you walk out of the clinic after the first jab you are no more protected than you were when you walked in, and the protection gradually kicks in as the time goes by. (Same with the second dose, actually. You don't walk into the clinic with 52% protection and walk out with 95% protection.) The suggestion is that when the first three weeks are up, the body's protection has ramped up to 91%.
It's also a "huge risk" for the other 500,000 who could be given a single does and won't be. If you thnik of two random old people, is it better than one should get two jabs and one none, or would they be better with one jab each? I don't know. If the experts believe the latter, I can believe them.
That's pretty much my point. In August last year, there were 210 deaths, 21 of them people under 60. If the over-60's have been vaccinated by then there will be less to spread around so - all else being equal - the number of deaths should be less than 21. Selling that as a reason for the continued abolition of social life, especially pensioners' social life - it'll be a tough sell.
