Isn't the fact that we (as in, society) don't agree that it does affect your life an indication that it's actually a borderline issue, though? Everyone would a

Isn't the fact that we (as in, society) don't agree that it does affect your life an indication that it's actually a borderline issue, though? Everyone would agree that a person wandering around the street firing live rounds into targets is acting in a dangerous manner. No-one would agree that a person drinking a cup of tea in their own house is acting in a dangerous manner. But coronavirus isn't one of those things. It's genuinely a borderline issue, and not because of the science, but because it's almost exactly on the line in which some people consider it to be a disaster and others consider it to be a bit of a nothing burger. As a result, you end up in a situation as described by rgrieselhuber below. Some people think that we need to close (e.g.) schools to stop coronavirus. Other people think that we need to stop caring so much about coronavirus, so that we can go to (e.g.) school. The question of whether there's misinformation is almost tangential to the point because there are huge numbers of people who do not doubt official statistics or modelling but also believe that data or those models are not severe enough to require us to 'stop the world' so to speak. I guess my thoughts are that, if we can't even convince each other (and from what I can tell neither of us have really fallen for misinformation), what hope is there for the actual 'vaccines cause 5g' nutjobs?