[Pyxl101]

I don't necessarily subscribe to this point of view (I don't know what I believe; I need to think more), but allow me to play devil's advocate consider: most of the people who die from this disease are old people who have already lived their lives. The young are giving up the opportunity to live their lives by staying home to stop the spread, when they predominately aren't at risk of death. Should the young give up their lives to save the old? The young already sacrifice substantially for the old - in the United States by way of Medicare for example. The lives of many young people are completely on hold: they cannot go to school, cannot have weddings, cannot have fun, all to stop a disease that for most not-old healthy people is similar to the flu or even milder. If you're a young person you might not find this to be a worthwhile sacrifice - sacrificing years of your life to save people who have already lived "full" lives (that would be longer if not for COVID, but have made it to old age).

The vast majority of deaths are people over age 55: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#Ag...

[jschwartzi]

If you get COVID and survive it some of the side effects you can look forward to are: motor control issues, traumatic brain injury, lung scarring, heart tissue scarring, and even limb amputation. It is not “milder than the flu.”

[nthj]

We’re asking people to stay home to help mitigate the collapse of health care systems, at which point the young will find that car crashes, heart attacks and strokes that they may have otherwise survive now become far more deadly.

[SomeoneFromCA]

What a bullshit argument.