I note that you know that the scientific community says that this is a phenomenon that has a global average fatality rate of less than one per cent - it falls within the range of countless other life risks that occur everywhere, noticed or unnoticed.

No, I have to disagree on this point. A 1% fatality rate upon contraction of covid 19 may seem small to you, but it is high relative to most causes of death. It is 10x times higher than influenza, for example. And the highly infectious nature of the virus has additional consequences as well: hospital ICUs fill up with covid patients and overwhelm hospital staff, resulting in poorer patient care for all patients at the hospitals. If we all just went on with "life as normal", this would be an epic disaster. We cannot reasonably treat covid 19 as just an ordinary life risk.

Insofar as you think that it still means an absolute risk for you personally - which I don't really assume after your answer - you can continue to keep a strict distance from your fellow human beings and to take your personal decisions and precautions in this regard.

I am relatively young and I have a lot of personal autonomy (it is probably not difficult to discern I am rich), so no, I am not personally concerned about covid-19. But most people don't have the same number of options that I have.

If you take your observations seriously, you know that both phenomena occur. Can you confirm that? There is no inevitability here.

I am not arguing inevitability. I am arguing probability. My personal observations in life and shared observations argue strongly that viruses are transmitted via close contact with infected individuals. And many scientific experiments have proven this on other species. I don't see how you can profitably argue further on this point. If you disagree with this premise, let's just agree to disagree about it.

The other thing is your emotions, which you obviously have (who hasn't?) and speak with disdain of a bunch of people who like to not have to be treated, but then should keep to themselves.

Of course I have emotions. But it is extremely rare that I let those emotions override my logical reasoning ability, and I do have disdain for people who do, especially when it comes to serious discussions that have life-threatening implications.

That you can't follow up on your initially politically correct answer is obvious from the fact that you logically cannot believe that this bunch would be able to keep to themselves, because what is real and actual is that each of us has to go to the supermarket and to places where we meet others in public space. So, you end up in the dilemma, of which I spoke in my first comment to you.

To set the record straight: I don't care about "political correctness" nor do I strive for it.

And I absolutely can logically believe that people can keep to themselves. I did it and so did many other people I know. Going to the store once or twice a week is pretty much keeping away from other people. And one person from a pod can be assigned this task, buying for the group (which we also did). And when you do go to a store, you can take precautions to avoid close contact, confined spaces, etc. This is one of the reasons why I wasn't concerned about contracting covid 19 personally. The dilemma is only in your mind, by an overly restrictive definition of what it means to keep to yourself. It doesn't require you to become an absolute hermit.

There has never been anyone arguing with me at my workplace who suffered from a bad illness, because if they had a bad illness, they would have stayed at home and would have no strength to argue with me at work.

Sorry you had difficulty understanding the point of my hypothetical argument, but I think the point was clear enough, and I feel you are just trying needlessly to avoid the central point.

Maybe analogies are just hard to use across a language barrier (especially when two people have opposing viewpoints and one side has an incentive to misunderstand the point), so I'll just explain the central meaning of the analogy: I don't think your rights extend to risking the life of others by engaging in behaviors that are predictably dangerous to other people (and I suspect you ultimately believe the same thing and would vigorously protest if someone put your life at risk by their risky behavior). This is a well recognized principle in modern society. It is why there are laws against drinking while intoxicated, for example.

Do you have other suggestions or thoughts other than to separate people, for this is an impossible thing to achieve, is it not?

No, it is not. Only if you assume some absolute separation of a kind that absolutely no one I'm aware of has suggested (until possibly you).