Of course I can.
I avoid close contact with people who might bring harm to ME. I take the effort. Not them. I do not insist the world come to a stop so I am free to do as I please.
I don't understand your point. I happen to work with a guy whose kid is in daycare. He and his kid have been sick since he joined the team. I don't insist he stay home, but I do insist he not hang out in my office.
To clarify the point, let's speak specifically about COVID-19 (i.e., I don't want smoking outlawed for all our second-hand smoke risk, or to remove red meat from menus, etc. I don't want to cease prosecuting terrorism cases, etc.)
I assert that you CANNOT fully control the risk TO yourself, BY yourself.
You make certain efforts, as do I.
I do not think that you are able - nor do I think I am - to avoid getting sick purely by our own efforts.
If there were only a few thousand people in China with the disease, and no cases in the United States, I did not think that, at that time, I had much risk. I think that I have more now.
I think that if the real number of infected were NOW 40-70% of the population, I think my risk of exposure would be much higher.
What's your procedure for your mail? Until Trump defunds the Post Office, we still have mail to worry about.
There's a non-zero chance that your lucky droplet is on there and still alive. If there is 100% saturation elsewhere in the society, your chances of the lucky droplet increase.
I take it from your post that you can't telework. Would you rather go to a physical work location with a higher or lower infection rate (whether or not people stay in their own areas, etc.?)
In my building, you load money on your laundry card using folding money. Sorry, but that's a great vector. So to be 100% sure, I need to go get money, keep it in a plastic bag for some number of days, and so on... spraying stuff down as I go (card, card reader...) Wearing gloves... disposing of them properly...
Point being, we're still not in positive pressure moon suits, are we? There's still risk to ME coming from the general population.
With 40-70% of the population having the virus -- i.e., the full extent of the pandemic -- the risk to ME increases, through nothing that *I* am doing/not doing.
Now if that's JUST "me," who cares. But that "ME" x 330 million is the country. The same applies to each of us. MY risk is influenced by the behavior of others.
Substitute YOU for ME, and the same applies.
The size of the risk matters, of course.
The potential of this pandemic to take lives is enormous. We've seen the tip of the iceberg that's possible in that 41,000 lost (at this writing). We're pretty well on the way to that rosy 60,000 death figure.
You know, 20 9/11s. Or getting close to one Hiroshima.
But I take it we're good with that, if the rosy 60K figure is the limit of this bungled catastrophe.
The way you keep that number in the tens of thousands and out of the millions, thus far, has involved a lot of inconvenience.... because that's been the only defense at the national level.
We should open essential areas of society, WITH gating and precautions, I totally understand that. We have to, for that matter.
But fill a stadium in the fall? No.
Or for that matter, start loading risk with restaurants, bars, etc.?
Well, you can avoid the immediate risk by not going. But how do you control the risk that your mailman went? Or your food delivery guy? And so on.
This isn't a casually infectious disease. It's one that will spread if the rule is to live "normal" lives, with only people who BELIEVE they're vulnerable taking precautions.
Belt and suspenders, dude. Keep the general infected number low, and you protect yourself. Policy matters.
