The problem is that so many people are ill or die within a very very short window instead of being spread out as it is before the epidemic.

From a purely selfish point of view, assuming the disease will be a minor inconvenience to you because you’re young and healthy, there are other things to consider:

- what happens to your (presumably much older) parents when they get sick? Death is a very real outcome there

- what happens when you have a car crash and need intensive care but all hospital beds are full and there are also younger patients than you to treat with a better outcome? You’re triaged lower priority and may not get the care you’d normally get or survive at all

For perspective, there really aren’t that many ICU hospital beds altogether because the usual number of people who need intensive care at any given point in a city of millions is in the hundreds (maybe low thousand?) Once the exponential nature of the epidemics hits and there are thousands of people who need care right now on top of the usual load, then it’s like in Italy where some are left to die just because choices must be made and there are either healthier victims with better prognosis.

Really appreciate you posting such a rational and reasoned reply.

This talk at the start of an exponential curve is exactly the problem

I wonder how many people are fitting the “how many people are tested” to the same exponential curve? If there is exponential growth in the number of tests given, it follows there would be an exponential growth in number of cases detected.

That is absolutely true, which is one of the reasons that it is surprising that the curve isn't any higher than it is.