> Those over retirement age by definition can choose where to go during the day.

You somehow left out the fact that people can't see where the virus is or who carries it. Thus if you are, say, in a retirement home operated and visited freely by those you claim that have nothing to worry about then what chance do they have to avoid being exposed to the virus?

And all it takes is one exposure to get the virus to spread like wildfire within the retirement home. That's been observed in Italy and Spain.

The problem is even more serious if elderly live with family.

Additionally, you also left out the fact that your reference shows signifixant excess deaths in the cohort 46-64yo representing an increase of about 18% wrt the baseline.

I didn't leave anything out. Read it again. But it is interesting how your reply is full of problems that are easily solved without inconveniencing the majority of society (the majority being under the age of 42).

Similarly the denominator game won't save you because I can do maths. Do the numbers again with the population total in that age range.

Then compare that to the chance of dying on the operating table if you opt to have surgery.

Then remember I'm in that age range and have assessed the risk.

Now tell me again why you think you have the right to tell me what I can and can't do?

> But it is interesting how your reply is full of problems that are easily solved without inconveniencing the majority of society

I'd love to hear some of them.

> Now tell me again why you think you have the right to tell me what I can and can't do?

Same reason it's Ok to tell you can't drive drunk.

> I didn't leave anything out. Read it again. But it is interesting how your reply is full of problems that are easily solved without inconveniencing the majority of society (the majority being under the age of 42).

Care to tell us about these easy solutions?

>Quite a lot of this argument boils down to political philosophy: Personal Choice vs Nanny Knows Best.

Framing the argument in this way is the source of the problem every time this comes up.

Solutions don't adhere to philosophies. Some situations call us to work together, and sometimes the best way to work together is for everybody to cede a little control and defer to somebody doing the coordination.

That's all there is too it. We should agree to let everyone live their lives without unnecessary limits, but we should also agree that when collective action is needed, we are also prepared to accept that and to make it work.

> Those over retirement age by definition can choose where to go during the day.

Unless they are not able to. Or require basic resources. Or require medical attention they can't get at home. Or...

It's not a great generalisation.

Looking exclusively at death rates is silly. There are many diseases which otherwise don't kill but make life terrible for those affected and result in huge costs to healthcare systems.

This virus doesn't just kill or leave people unscathed, it also leaves people with long term damage or knocks them out for a couple of weeks. Sitting in bed for weeks is not appealing at all to most people.

Which e.g. EU country is currently tracking the long-term sequelae of COVID? Where is this information available?

So far we've only seen individual reports about lung damage (including potentially life long) in e.g. divers (including for non-stationary disease courses!), reports about kidney damage, mid-term loss of smell, etc.

We're going to get a clear picture in years, so it's irresponsible to say it happens rarely.

The people for which social distancing is a major problem will also have a huge issue with becoming bedridden for weeks on end. Think single-income earners, single parents, etc. Even for a couple with kids this could be a nightmare with one partner taking care of the kids and their sick significant other. Remember that the sick person has to isolate too!