Anyway, my point was simply that if we took the same attitude towards risk that you all do with COVID and applied that elsewhere, we’d all be rolling around in hermetically sealed hamster balls until we died of boredom.
The following numbers are from several month old seroprevalence studies so take them with a grain of salt but:
https://www.ryankemper.io/post/2020-04-29-the_case_for_endin...
Pegs the 50-59 age range around the median IFR. Whereas the >70 mortality is where things really start falling off of a cliff.
BTW my point was never “your chance of dying in a car crash is >= COVID”...although that statement would be very true for <40 age populations. My point was more broadly that people have a risk aversion to COVID that is unmatched by their attitudes towards risk in all other areas of life.
Which was based on your observation of driving VS Covid19 mortality, or at least it appeared to be from the comment.
People have a very natural risk aversion for a new disease that is extremely likely to kill their parents or grandparents, that has unknown long-term effects, that has no known treatment, and that risks becoming endemic if not contained soon (and that has already killed more people than malaria).
"The Dutch government reported multiple cases of transmission from mink to farm staff"
If it can happen in a farm, there's a reasonable chance it can happen in the wild too. Cats also seem to be able to get it: https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200911/covid-19-may-strike...
Animal reservoirs make the flu pretty much impossible to eradicate.