I don't know. Apparently funding the entire population's furlough and business support is cheaper than specifically targeting that same support to the vulnerable and their families? This question gets asked a lot and the answer invariably comes back that it would be difficult to implement but no one seems to address that surely targeting any finite population would be easier to manage than rolling it out carte blanche nationwide even to those who it wouldn't benefit?

2.2 mllion received a shielding letter earlier in the year, 11 million are over 65 (theres likely overlap), expand for everyone to include two relatives/carers per person to receive full financial support, let's say we're looking at shielding 20 million people - surely that would be half the headache of supporting and policing all 70 million of us? Those who do need help would have a lot more support per person on average to what everyone is currently getting?

Or how about an opt-out system where you can apply for a license to be able to carry on if you can demonstrate you're in a low risk group and dont have contact with the vulnerable? I'm not talking about going to the pub or down primark, but freedom to see your support network, to work and contribute to society, support local businesses.

I dunno I'm rambling off the top of my head. The last year has been very difficult so maybe im in the bargaining stage of the grief cycle lol.