[palmer]

You were doing great until this: "although anyone harmed is one too many". That's liberalism. Exactly the same as "we need to ban guns if it saves one child". Part of being objective is avoiding emotional arguments like one death is too many.

In fact one death or 100 deaths or maybe more is ok if it saves 100,000 lives in the next wave by drastically shrinking that wave. Here's objective data: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/israel/ Israel has reopened for the most part. They have a combination of natural immunity from maybe 25% infection (4 times the detected cases) plus a high vaccination rate.

[El Cid]

Part of being objective is avoiding emotional arguments like one death is too many.

Its not so much being emotional, other than noting that many of the people potentially getting harmed by this experimental concoction had a nearly nil chance of being taken out by the CoVid (particularly if the CDC/Government had allowed the use of HCQ and Ivermectin) - so yes, one is too many.
The number you posited are fair - sure, if you have a disease killing 25+% of those infected, then yes - it is worth taking the risk.
But I agree - let everyone make their decision. I just wish that we had data that we could all trust to base our decisions.

[Phillyred]

But ehat was their death rats. I don’t care about infection rate. It isn’t deadly to most people.