This is classic libertarian thinking, and I used to subscribe to it, at least to some extent. The more you think about it, though, the more it doesn't hold up.
It's just undeniably true that individual freedoms exist only to the extent that society allows them to. To think that you can opt out of society is fantasy.
It's in everybody's best interest to make sure society works well for everyone, and that kind of thinking pushes you back to the political center.
A virus with a novel mutation favoring humans would be successful infecting humans, period. I can't imagine any respiratory virus that wouldn't spread more effectively indoors. This "factor" is not particularly compelling (to me).
What's been disappointing to me throughout this experience is the fact that a large percentage of people don't seem to understand contagion.
The idea that a young person is safe is convenient for young people, but irrelevant. We never seemed to communicate to a segment of the population that we are trying to keep them from spreading it, as well as keeping them from catching it.
This is clearly not true. You are an intelligent person and can probably think of half a dozen counters to this without trying too hard. You may wish this were the case, but it just isn't. Not under any conceivable society that we could structure.
I always find it interesting how people can think completely differently about this topic depending on how they frame it in their mind. If you think about it from the perspective of personal risk, then young people bristle at being told what to do. If you think about it from the perspective of contagion and at risk people who want to be able to participate in society, you would have a different perspective.
Hopefully we can agree that years where we lose 100,000 people from influenza are tragic, even if we've become accustomed to it. The optimistic possible outcome from this pandemic is maybe that rapid, inexpensive in-home testing for common virus infections becomes widespread. That'd allow a responsible person to test themselves before they went to a sporting event.
It'd also be wonderful if we invested more in a universal influenza vaccination. That's been right around the corner for decades now.
Not sending kids to school is about keeping the teachers, administrators, and their dependents and contacts safe. It's about grandparents who care for the children and would be at risk. I don't think it's about your mom.
I keep reading people asserting this, and I assume it's because we believe that a virus that becomes less lethal would have an evolutionary advantage.
But, wouldn't lengthening the incubation period also be a successful evolutionary strategy regardless of lethality?
It seems to me that there are many possible strategies that a mutating virus might gain an advantage and we shouldn't just assume that the only one that they would use would be to become more mild.
It's just undeniably true that individual freedoms exist only to the extent that society allows them to. To think that you can opt out of society is fantasy.
It's in everybody's best interest to make sure society works well for everyone, and that kind of thinking pushes you back to the political center.