In a sense they might be rational; anyone under 50 has a 95% of being out of action for a week or two then getting back up unaided. That is much less punishing for them than the lockdown unless they are the unlucky 1 in 20. Not prudent, but about the same level of risk assessment people use when talking on mobiles while driving.
One of the major issues is the Boomers are hitting that delicate age where things start to kill them instead of being shrugged off. Trying to protect the 50-70 cohort is the real dance here.
> anyone under 50 has a 95% of being out of action for a week or two then getting back up unaided.
Now consider a home with four people under 50. The chance of someone in that home getting unlucky is then around 1 in 5. There is only a 81% chance of all four "being out of action for a week or two then getting back up unaided".
It is a mystery to me why anyone downvoted you. Yep; exactly so. There are people on the edge of an economic disaster where 80% odds of being fine are substantially better than the economic stresses they are being put under. Someone without a good social network could be facing a risk of actually starving to death if they lose their job and all local businesses shut down in line with the quarantine. The disruptions happening are profound.
I'm cautious and I'm not about to venture out of my apartment until we all know what is going on, but the data we have so far isn't a compelling story that would convince everyone.
One of the major issues is the Boomers are hitting that delicate age where things start to kill them instead of being shrugged off. Trying to protect the 50-70 cohort is the real dance here.