[SpicyLemonZest]

It's not inconsequentially low. However, n the individual level, it's about the same risk of death as you face over a normal year. It's worth quite a bit of effort and sacrifice to avoid multiplying that individual risk by the entire population, but a lot of people talk like it's a megaplague they need to avoid catching at all costs.

By all means, everyone should try and find ways to thrive inside, and wear a mask when they go out. I see people propose that in-person social activity should just be forbidden or strongly discouraged until a vaccine comes - that would be a severe and harmful overreaction.

[acqq]

> But on the individual level, it's about the same risk of death as you face over a normal year.

It's surely not. Even the "normal" averages include people who have big problems. If you are an individual who is not in the group of people with big problems, and if the virus can make you sick, your risk gets up significantly, as soon as you risk being infected. Because, for example, you can know that you personally aren't in the risk group of people tending to commit suicide.

The currently known estimate of "people who get the virus and have no recognizable symptoms during all phases of infection" is just around 20% across all the age groups. Knowing that younger than 45 aren't being only 20% of population, it doesn't sound so trivial.

The same (that one can know that catching virus increases risk) is for some of the people with big problems, even if they are young: it is known that some of those (who have some big problems) are hit much stronger by the virus, e.g. those with diabetes: without the virus they can safely expect to live for decades more, with the virus, they can immediately expect much less. And no, not only overweight people have diabetes.

And the above analysis is only for young people. But being old enough (and that is even for those being above 45) and catching the virus increases the risks of permanent health damage or death many times, according to all statistics we have.

Finally, no age group can expect to have "no problems" as soon as the health system collapses, and that is why the strict measures were introduced in most of the world -- it is a reasonable goal to avoid that much.

[SpicyLemonZest]

Sorry, I may have been unclear. I'm not saying the risk adds up to zero somehow; it's the risk you face over a normal year, in addition to the actual risk of living through 2020 which you'll still face. In other words, if the virus spread to everyone in the US this year, we'd expect to see 2 normal years worth of deaths this year.

The health system does need to be prevented from collapsing, but that can be achieved with measures much less severe than "no socializing". Strict lockdowns may have been necessary before, but they're not necessary now, which is why they're being rolled back pretty much across the globe.

[acqq]

> In other words, if the virus spread to everyone in the US this year, we'd expect to see 2 normal years worth of deaths this year.

No again, as I've argued, you just can't use averages across the whole countries to estimate individual increase of risk so simple as you suggest, as your statement was

"on the individual level, it's about the same risk of death as you face over a normal year."

Everybody knows his own risk, and it's surely not "2 normal years" for most of the people. I've given the examples for somebody who is young but not suicidal, for somebody who is young, fit and with diabetes, for somebody who is fit but older etc. What you argue is plainly wrong calculation:

According to your logic, if the average number of children per grown up person in my country is 1.2 I should personally have 1.2 child. It doesn't work that way. In reality, one person knows that he will never have children, another that she will have 2 etc.

Edit: responding to the reply below this writing: "What I see people saying" .. "That every single person in the country should live a life of isolation for the next year to minimize the chances they get the coronavirus." -- who is claiming that and where actually? And even if you "see that" somewhere (not on HN I'd guess) it doesn't change the fact that you claimed an "individual risk" of "2 years" for practically everybody, which is, as I believed I've proven up to now, obviously wrong.

[SpicyLemonZest]

I'm not presenting this as a one-size-fits-all prescription for estimating individual risk. There are certainly some people who are more risk averse or more likely to die than average, and they'll surely want to take more precautions than the average Joe.

What I see people saying is that the average Joe, even the 35 year old peak of his health Joe, is at extreme risk. That every single person in the country should live a life of isolation for the next year to minimize the chances they get the coronavirus. I don't think there's any plausible risk weighting where that's true.

[pdovy]

I'm not arguing that we need to entirely restrict activity, sorry if that was unclear. However, very little is fundamentally different today than in March. The virus is no less virulent, we have no widely available non-supportive treatment, and only a small percentage of the population is thought to have immunity.

Our only advantage is a higher level of preparedness in terms of testing, tracing and standards of care for the sick.

That should allow us a greater level of freedom than at the height of the lockdown, especially in less hard hit areas if testing and tracing can be relied upon to catch flare ups early.

All that doesn't change the fact that 100% business as usual will eventually require either a vaccine, an effective treatment, or a large number of deaths.

EDIT: Can't believe I have to say this here, but the downvote button is not a "dislike". If you disagree, engage in a discussion please!

[SpicyLemonZest]

Yeah, I largely agree with what you're saying here.