I would say that's cruel to tell them on live TV, but they've already been far too cruel by locking them up without internet in the first place. Like, shouldn't that be considered illegal or something?

I'd sign a no internet contract too if somebody had a gun to my head... wouldn't make it legal though!

You saw the other pictures. The mention of ventilators as the bottleneck is nothing more than a simplification, there is a lot more to it than hooking someone up to a ventilator. More ventilators and you simply run into the next bottleneck. But yep more will help and China is sending them to Italy to help out as well as medical personal. Which is why it's so important to stretch this out and prevent simultaneous peaks all over the world.

The alternative is not to subject your whole population to a new disease with still many unknowns. Plus plenty younger people still need medical help to get through this. Not only old get sick.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/17/21184291/coronavirus-covid-19-young-people-sick-vulnerable-affected-severe-cases

Yes there are far fewer, but intentionally spreading the virus to millions of young people will still bring down the healthcare system. See the mitigation scenarios here https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf

As a percentage of the current 115k infected, the total young people needing critical care is very small.
Looking at under 20 for the UK, that's 7.6 million, about 4 million in there 20's and so on. The mortality rate for these groups is still estimated at 0.2% or about 15 thousand under 20, 8 thousand deaths in the 20 to 30 range. Plus at least double of that will need ICU to get through the disease with 4K ICU beds available in the UK, thus more won't survive.

Is that a sacrifice you're willing to make?

How gas the mood changed now in the UK after Boris' team addmitted 400,000 thousand would die with their plan. Are people willing to do the soft lockdown or are they ignoring it?

I was using the numbers from the Italian and South Korean studies which have no-one under 30 dying and have lower percentages than China for 30-39yr olds. I wouldn't be so blase about 0.2%.

If we knew the probability of a more deadly mutation then 0.2% could be a no-brainer assuming it offers some immunity.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1103023/coronavirus-cases-distribution-by-age-group-italy/
No one under 30 dying in Italy? Where did you get that from.

So far 1.1% of deaths are in 0-18 year age group, 24.3% in 19 to 50 year age group.

Assuming the 3.4% overall (Still used by the WHO) is correct:
0-18 have a 0.037% risk of death
19-50 have a 0.85% risk of death

Now maybe the over all risk is only 2%, that's still 0.02% for 18 and under according to what we know so far.
Maybe it's 1% over all, that's under a thousand deaths under 18 in the UK, yet still about 33 thousand between 20 and 50 (if the rest that need critical care can actually be saved)

China and Italy are the best statistics we have so far, over 6,000 deaths combined. South Korea only has 93 deaths so far, far too little for a statistical analysis.

My neighbors made it out to go on holiday in BC :/ Not smart but whatever.

I'm doing the groceries tomorrow for my parents in law, not worth the risk for them to go out. Quick in and out, disinfect the shopping cart handlebar first, sanitizer ready in the car for right after. No face touching etc. Learning that my province hasn't even begun testing for community spread while imported cases are not far from here makes it all a bit more "better safe than sorry"

Hopefully your dad is all right! Pooling groceries also helps reduce traffic to stores. Here they also opened the drug stores an hour earlier, reserved for elderly and those at risk to get an hour to get their medical supplies safely.