A creative and original solution to the coronavirus pandemic, based on the British model

Peace and blessings!
I would like to propose an innovative solution to the coronavirus pandemic and its consequences.
As you know, in the wider world there are currently two approaches:
1. The accepted approach is to isolate carriers of the virus, to prevent the infection of a population at risk . The difficulty with this method is the relentless pursuit of carriers who infect others in an engineering column. There is no predicting when the virus will be eradicated, and even if they do succeed in isolating all carriers, in the near or distant future an infected tourist from abroad (or deliberate infection by a hostile entity) could arrive, and start the pursuit all over again. This is a chase after the wind.
The cost of this behavior is economic and social, due to the severe restrictions that the authorities impose on employment. Another cost is the psychological cost, as the public lives in uncertainty, and is very afraid of contagion and the restrictions and their consequences that may apply to them (uncertainty is a significant factor in both the economic and psychological dimensions).
2. The British approach is to isolate the population at risk (although it was recently announced that the government has abandoned the plan – https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001322017). In such a situation, the healthy population becomes ill with the virus and develops "herd immunity", and after a period of time the virus cannot spread, because most of the population is vaccinated. The economic gain is clear – there are no restrictions on the public.
The difficulty with this method from the perspective of the healthy population is the expected hospitalization rate, because even when the at-risk population is isolated, a healthy population that falls ill all at once still requires greater hospitalization than usual, and health services may collapse.
For the population at risk, the difficulty is the complete isolation for many months. Such a population is supposed to be closed and enclosed, without access to food stores, medicine, or recreation. In many cases, this population is assisted by caregivers or family members, and in this method they are supposed to be separated from them for long months. There is also a moral problem with this method, if it ultimately increases the mortality rate in the population.
 
I would like to propose an interim solution: Closed and isolated places can be established for coronavirus patients, but healthy people will be brought into these places, with the aim of knowingly becoming infected and becoming vaccinated. These complexes will be located in hotels, and the stay there will be at a resort level, at the expense of the state. The government will offer the public a two-week hotel vacation, when the participant is directly or indirectly infected, and during the period of illness he is "on vacation", and at the same time he enjoys what the place can offer (leisure activities). The participant can also be compensated for the loss of work during this period. Of course, the place will be equipped with advanced medical services.
This solution brings personal benefit to the participant, and national benefit:
On a personal level, someone who goes on this vacation is certain that they cannot get sick again, and therefore do not pose a danger to their immediate environment, for example to their elderly parents. The person will also be exempt from future isolation in any situation. Even when various restrictions are announced, they will be allowed to move around and live as usual, because they do not pose a danger. Suppose they fly to a foreign country, they will be exempt from the obligation to isolate there, because they cannot pose a danger (compared to the current situation where a person can stay in isolation for two weeks, then be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and commit to repeated isolation).
At the national level, there is a double benefit. The problem is also solved, there is no fear of re-infection either in the near or long term, because the healthy public develops herd immunity. The second benefit is that there is no situation of 'uncertainty'. Such a plan, even if it costs the state a lot of money, can be estimated in advance. The Treasury and the stock exchange will know how much money the Corona crisis is costing, and certainty will improve the financial situation in all sectors, private, business and government.
I would like to know: A: What do you think when comparing the accepted solution to the British solution?
B: What do you think about the solution I proposed?
PS: I ignored the possibility of developing a vaccine for the virus, because there is no precise prediction of when the vaccine will be available for mass use.