"Potentially" seems to be a rather imprecise number to me to base a decision upon. And that's the key - decision making, specifically risk decisions. Give me the data. If I'm in a high risk group with a high probablity of death, then that leads to one set of behaviors. If not, then another set of behaviors. The data is clearly showing that the incidence probability for contracting and then dieing from this virus emphatically does not fit a Gaussian/Normal distribution. It's highly skewed. If an individual choses to socially distance and isolate by restricting him/her/binary self to a home environment then that is their prerogative. I get the argument about asymmetric carriers. Tersting, for a short period, helps here. But that's only one part of the equation. The other part is the susceptiblity to contracting the virus and the probability of death. Those are the people who should not be out and about. Those are the people who should be receiving greater attention and support.
Not directed at anyone in particular, but, after I make a decision on my life based on accurate threat/risk probabilities to myself, my familiy and those around me - attempts to stop me from doing what I want will provoke a response. The dirty secret is that people have been out and about for a while now. I see it on a daily basis and I saw it while on a short trip to FL last week. Nobody talks about it, but until a vaccine is developed, the basic premise (the way these things have been handled before) is to suffer through a wave that immunizes a large segment of the population - the downside to this evident. Quarantining does nothing to prevent the disease - it's designed to slow the rate of spread. The original intent for quarantining, all should recall, was to prevent the healthcare system from being overwhelmed. Well, where are we now?
Btw...I'm not following your logic. The restaurant owners serving the freedom screamers? Those are their customers that they have opened their businesses to. Are you claimimg that the freedom screamers are by definition the carriers? That they can't make intelligent decisions? If they chose to stay home even if healthy, the restaurant goes away as do the jobs. It's about intelligent risk decisions. It shouldn't be about fear. This paternalistic notion that lies at the root in places like Michigan is also dangerous - as adults we're just too stupid to make informed decisions that weigh competing risks. I would submit the real problem is how poor the analysis/predictive models have been and the evident corruption/politiization of data collection/"normalization".
I will now retreat to my cubby hole and enjoy my designer ice cream.