For me, it's business as usual. I'm going to work, etc. I haven't changed any of my habits because I, as a fit 27 year old don't need to.
Then, statistically speaking, you will be the cause of at least one person dying, on average. Maybe it'll be none. Maybe it'll be 20+. But you are taking actions that could cause someone to die, when you could, at virtually zero cost to yourself,
not cause anyone to die.
And yes, it's irresponsible to go around carrying disease, because it
makes people die. No, it isn't on the people who don't want to get sick to be quarantined, because we can't function if
everyone tries to be quarantined. So we go with the obvious, well-tested, proven tactic: People who are likely to be contagious are quarantined until they're no longer contagious, and then they're safe to go around because they won't get anyone sick.
And you keep saying that you're worried about economic impacts or whatever, but then dismissing the epidemic's costs as temporary. But the economic impacts you're worried about are just as temporary, and the epidemic's costs and harms
include significantly larger economic impacts than the ones you're supposedly trying to avoid.
If you're 27, you probably ought to be able to think about how your actions have consequences, and those consequences can affect other people, and even you. Sometimes
indirectly. For instance, maybe you think you don't need to worry, and it's other people's job to keep themselves safe, and you want to Support Small Business. So you go to a small business, and you carry disease to them, and you make them be too sick to work for two weeks, and kill one of their family members. And that's your idea of
supporting them?
Come on. My cat is not smart, and sometimes has trouble solving the mystery of what miscreant threw up her food, but I think she might be able to see the problem here.