| I absolutely agree with your general argument about the context of _average_ mortality rate. However another aspect that is still very nebulious at this point is post-infection sequelae. Some of the patients who survived SARS-1 infection (in the SARS 2002-2004 outbreak) had lung scaring, loss of VO2 max, and other pulmonary related disfunction, more than 10 years after infection. [0] We have seen a lot of pre-print articles discussing SARS-COV2 lung damage, heart and blood vessel damage, peripheral nerve damage, etc. So if we want to be factual and give people a chance of making an informed decision, then we should also take this aspect in consideration. At this point, we simply don't know enough about who will be affected and how severely but if take what we learned from SARS-COV1, than it is iresponsible not to disclose that life long injury or damage with _varying_ degrees of intensity across potentially multiple systems is very likely for _some_ of the survivors of SARS-COV2. My point is an informed decision of not following health authority guidelines (which, at this point of social isolation, I do not judge), should not be reduced to something binomial like survival/death, it's just not that simple (as with most things in life). [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7130167/ |