The Barista's sister would fall into the thousands (or even 10,000s) of 2nd connections you have, in which there will almost certainly be young deaths. The goalie might have had health complications. I personally know at least 2 people with diabetes, 2 with asthma, plus one post-cancer. Maybe I'm a little older than you, but many of us would know a young-ish person that would die (a quarter maybe if the 0.2% chance of 20-39 year old death is in the right order of magnitude).

Also, don't forget death rates would go up if a healthcare system collapses, which we haven't seen.

I think you're the delusional one, while your personal chance of dying is fairly low, you know hundreds of people, and those people know thousands more.

Are the chances of these people dying from COVID greater than other risks we take every single day, yet don't shut down society and curtail freedoms over?

That is really the only question that matters.

Yes, for example covid deaths in Scotland are 1/3 of all deaths, deaths in UK:

"The Office for National Statistics said that in the week to 3 April, 16,387 people died in England and Wales, an increase of 5,246 deaths compared with the previous week and 6,082 more than the five-year average."

And that's WITH a lock down, way before the massive peak that could have happened.

It's like you're stuck in the wishful thinking stage the rest of us were in two months ago.

The deaths in NY,LA,CA, and MI include many,many people under 70.

Also, you’ve responded several times without answering my question:

How many of your family, friends, and acquaintances are you willing to put up for the experiment?

Yes, many people under 70 have died. Hundreds, perhaps a thousand, all of which are tragedies. People also die from a variety of other diseases, accidents, and other things on a regular basis in numbers that dwarf the coronavirus. Yet, we don't shut down society over it.

> How many of your family, friends, and acquaintances are you willing to put up for the experiment?

This kind of snarky comment is precisely the problem. I'm not "willing to put up my friends" for experiment, because this isn't some zero sum game with simple answers. As I have said a dozen times now: it is a complicated situation and this "but people are dying, so we have to be as draconian as possible" take is extremely shortsighted.

There are millions of people that will now have serious problems because of the total shutdown. Here's a number for you:

> 45,000 – or one in five – suicides a year worldwide to unemployment, with a further 5,000 deaths caused by the economic crisis.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/02/the-link-between-unem...

45,000 people a year kill themselves because of unemployment. And that's just after 2008. We are apparently headed for a far worse crisis.

Have you considered the possibility that completely shutting down everything for months on end will result in more chaos and death than the virus itself? Even worse, this is entirely unpredictable?