Thank you for the response.

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. On this basis, there is no reason to continue to maintain a state of emergency. Since such does not fulfil the facts of a state of emergency. 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. But how will you argue to expect this from others, while accepting the above numbers?

The statistical information is not reason enough to restrict or discriminate everyone else who considers this a normal risk of life and does not wish to take any special measures or have them taken upon themselves. If 99 out of 100 people are alive, I don't see a sensible reason why the 99 alive should behave as if they were in acute danger of death?

Is it not so, that you move in your environment just as indifferently every day because how could you do otherwise? You are completely unconcerned about other risks that have no significant effect on the many people, because firstly you don't know them all and secondly you are not even able to consider them all. And why would you? Why should anyone blame you for that? Focusing on one disturbance in the system is like turning to only one thing in an ocean of possibilities, but overestimating its relevance.

Your argument that even a layman can experience members of a family infecting each other, counts the other way around: the same layman also experiences that none of his family members are infected by the other. Both phenomena happen. There is no inevitability here. If you take your observations seriously, you know that both phenomena occur. Can you confirm that? On the other hand, everyone can observe in the course of his life that he is more likely to fall ill in the winter than in the summer and that there are phases in which someone skips his winter illness, sometimes even two, three or more years, while there are again times when he falls ill twice in the winter. Other factors that you either know or don't know, play a role, correct?

What you named unnecessary danger is already answered as acceptable danger in the figure of less than one percent chance of death.

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. 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.

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. A negative right that someone might have, for example, not to have to work with me is completely beyond me.

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