Debating statistics and measures is hard because of the sheer quantity of slightly varied information. And even if numbers were universally agreed upon and understood, and it were as simple as 10% greater risk, we can’t make decisions by a show of hands. If 60% of people were willing to take the risk, are the rest supposed to suck it up?

> Compare also the 480000 US deaths yearly from tobacco, which could be prevented much easier than corona.

Tobacco is an epidemic too, but given that it spreads via psychological and sociological factors rather than virally, I’d make the argument that it’s actually much harder to combat.