Even before coronavirus, going to a concert, contracting influenza and passing it around could have killed someone. Influenza kills thousands every year, asymptomatic transmission is common, and the vaccine is only partially effective. COVID-19 is significantly more deadly but that's just a difference in degree; the same fundamentals still applied. So by your logic apparently concerts shouldn't have ever been permitted at all.

Corona is substantially more deadly, and long term effects can be permanent, it’s also in addition to the flu. By your logic we should just let corona run it’s course? You’re willing to let others die just so you can see a concert?

Do you think we should let group gatherings happen during flu season?

If not, how much more deadly (be precise) would the flu need to be before we should ban group socialization?

Trying to figure out if you're thinking in terms of a logical metric based risk analysis, or just emotion and terror of death.

We can all ask ourself : How many time I would accept to be confined now to live one more day/week/month/year at the end of my life. Now we can use this ratio and apply it to our current choice to calibrate how much we stay confined.

Isn't it better to live life fully when we are young and healthy, than to hide inside our homes in hopes for an extremely small chance that we might have a little extra time when we are old and decrepit?

Seems like this ratio would vary greatly among such demographics.

>Overeating and poor exercise only hurts yourself.

Obese people are twice as likely to be hospitalized for covid.

When hospital beds are being overrun, someone elses life long decisions to disregard their own health does indeed affect other peoples health negatively.