266: Corona, Corruption And Conspiracy - 7: Choosing The Harder Path

From as soon as it was recognized how it is less likely for this virus to be deadly for other than those with pre existing health conditions and the elderly, why didn't the protection be focussed on this group? We could have pointed out that fact to the public then asked people with preexisting medical conditions to come forward in order to protect themselves. In addition to the less restrictions on the rest and less burden on the economy, those two vulnerable groups could have been better supported financially and that in turn would support the effectiveness of this path of dealing with the issue. 

Nobody was arguing against the quarantine for the infected. So why was there such emphasis on dealing with the issue in terms of not transferring the virus instead of not receiving the virus? Why the clear and stronger path of having one taking care of himself was replaced with the more confusing and weaker path of taking care of others? Why choose what is much more undefined, and more dependant on morality here? Job adds, for example, as much as they can provide an enticing pay, are very far from from showing this self serving information in the background to the public serving, like here. It seems that the harder to implement path was intended here to magnify the problem.  
Even without being sure about that virus related thing, mentioned at the beginning, we should have looked for if there is enough probability to make the path described here our next step instead of jumping directly to or  continuing what we are in now.