Which seek to relate this point of view for political purposes, have been edited. This is an ethics course, and the politics are not part of this discussion. The author correctly reminds the reader that science has not yet fixed the answers to certain very important aspects of the question:

Is it possible to sufficiently isolate any single population in a pandemic to even attempt it? The answer to this is likely, probably not, as pandemics show increased numbers among any restricted populations. As seen in the 2020 pandemic, nursing homes, prisons, meet packing plants, indeed any groups in close proximity showed significantly increased infection rates.

Are mortality rates sufficiently low enough in the general population to justify their unrestricted exposure? The answer to this is: it depends. For the H1N1 Pandemic the answer was yes, for the COVID 19 Pandemic the answer appears to be no. Significant numbers of people not in the elderly, high-risk population have died (final figures yet to be determined). For the next pandemic, who knows? And the problem is, that no one will know until well into the pandemic.

Is this the ethical path we want to go down?

There are multiple aspects to this question. For this discussion, focus ONLY on choosing to allow natural infection or restricting contact to protect the most vulnerable

State your Decision (note I say Decision here, not opinion. Opinions can be off-the-cuff and very self-centered. Decisions use the pondering on multiple points of view, include ethical considerations, are carefully thought-out, and are conscientious enough to empower actions)

Support your decision with an ethical principle (ex. Utilitarian or Deontological)

Cite references