> The implication of your post is that 1% of people dying isn’t an issue so long as they are old or fat. Nowhere did I state or suggest that it's not a big dea

> The implication of your post is that 1% of people dying isn’t an issue so long as they are old or fat. Nowhere did I state or suggest that it's not a big deal if old and "fat" (your words, not mine, interestingly) people die. The fact that the death rate is magnitudes of order higher in countries where over 40% of the population is overweight is not a tidbit of no importance. It's hugely important because it reflects the disparity of risk that exists in groups with certain comorbidities. Other figures are just as stark. For instance, according to the CDC, 513 children 0-17 have died from COVID during the entire pandemic. Obviously, all of those 513 lost lives had value but if you ignore the fact that 745 times more people 75 and over have died from COVID than those aged 0-17, you will miss the forest for the trees. In short, how can we have an honest discussion about COVID risk without acknowledging that the risk is very clearly not equal in all individuals? > Now imagine a sports venue where every 5 games 10 people died of food poisoning but far more got really sick and some even required hospitalisation. Would you choose to eat the food at that venue when you went there? How are these figures at all comparable to COVID? If we're going to have an intelligent conversation about COVID risk, pulling numbers out of thin air and using irrelevant comparisons isn't constructive.