The other group wants to "stop the virus" and does not accept the risk of death of others.

There is no bridging the gap with data, it is a value judgement. You can't argue someone out of their values.

You especially will not be able to convince the risk takers, because they are risk takers, and the mortality of this virus is so low that a huge number of people don't personally know a single person who has died from it. Perception matters a lot.

If COVID-19 had a 10% death rate, or killed children like Tuberculosis, you could more easily argue down the risk takers.

According to CDC data, 81% of deaths from COVID-19 in the United States are people over 65 years old, most with preexisting conditions. If you add in 55-64-year-olds that number jumps to 93%. For those below age 55, preexisting conditions play a significant role, but the death rate is currently around 0.0022%, or one death per 45,000 people in this age range. Below 25 years old the fatality rate of COVID-19 is 0.00008%, or roughly one in 1.25 million.

These are odds any risk taker would take.

There are large groups who don't believe in science, that believe the dinosaurs never existed, some even think the world is flat. Among other beliefs. And yes, those people will not be convinced by any amount of data or evidence. I guess that's life.

And yet, there's is no doubt in my mind that the right thing to do is to take measures to control the spread of the virus.

We're not talking about "stay locked down", we're talking about practicing common sense measures that bring the epidemic under control, like wear masks, physical distancing, wash your hands. The counter-arguments that we're hearing from some circles about how maybe masks infringe on people's rights are just beyond belief.

Right now the US has 130k deaths with maybe 5%-10% of the population having had the disease, it's not just about deaths though, how many people have been very seriously ill, how many will suffer some consequences for the rest of their lives? We don't know what longer term risks are, we don't even know if getting the disease makes you immune. Even without knowing that the social and economic costs of just letting this spread uncontrollably are huge.

Now those people who are "risk takers" aren't just risking themselves getting sick. Their family can get sick. Their friends can get sick. Their friend's family can get sick. Do you want to be the guy who got your friend's father sick and he dies? I'm sorry but there's no excuse. Anyhow, we don't have to convince the risk takers, we can force them to behave the way that society expects them to behave. We don't say hey let them rob a bank, the risk is low, they're just risk takers...

And it's really not the US, it's the world, we have over 500k deaths worldwide (that we know of), and we're only getting started.

It is a difference in values. You are arguing as if presented with same data that you have there is only one obvious and rational conclusion, but that is simply not the case. If someone has different values they can come to a very different conclusion.

Take Sweden for example, many people view it as a success and the higher than the rest of the EU death rate perfectly acceptable.

Life isn’t life to some if you can’t live it.

The data isn’t black and white. Of course you are comfortable forcing people to behave, Canada is fairly totalitarian in policing of speech, etc. Would never fly in the US.

Sweden is now a pariah state in the EU, its borders have been closed by its neighbors.

Let's just apply your argument to speeding. If I'm a risk taker why can't I drive 100MPH in a residential neighbourhood? Heck, life isn't worth living if I can't get that thrill. Tell that story to the US cop that pulls you over. Naturally the others you are putting in danger, their lives are worth nothin'.

You're right, it's all about values.

I'm an American living in Canada and that's just straight up incorrect. The level of discourse is effectively the same as in the US.

We seriously need to consider long-term damage to health as part of the equation.

I would like to see the statistics on these reports, not just mortality rate.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/26/health/coronavirus-immune...

The idea that we know anything meaningful about what impact COVID will have on people’s long term health is foolhardy to the extreme. Extreme precaution is the only reasonable path in the face of these kinds of unknowns.

I think the bottom line is we don't know for sure but if needed a little more evidence this isn't just a walk in the park I think we got some.

It is a difference in values. You are arguing as if presented with same data that you have there is only one obvious and rational conclusion, but that is simply not the case. If someone has different values they can come to a very different conclusion.

According to CDC data, 81% of deaths from COVID-19 in the United States are people over 65 years old, most with preexisting conditions. If you add in 55-64-year-olds that number jumps to 93%. For those below age 55, preexisting conditions play a significant role, but the death rate is currently around 0.0022%, or one death per 45,000 people in this age range. Below 25 years old the fatality rate of COVID-19 is 0.00008%, or roughly one in 1.25 million.

These are odds any risk taker would take.

I read this as being focused on the students, and ignoring the fact that many of the potentially affected people would be in the 65+ group that is most at risk. You seem to be ignoring that in favor of focusing on the minuscule risk of death to college students themselves.

Taiwan, South Korea, Vietnam and New Zealand have this situation under control without mass injury or loss of life. Turning away from those examples because you don’t care is basically the same as any other form of science denialism.

What does the death rate jump to for all other medical emergencies and illnesses with an overrun medical system?

And do those rates apply to those who have been infected or to the population in general for these age groups.