Thanks! I think your viewpoint is one shared by lots of people for valid reasons, so hopefully I'm not coming across as too argumentative or whatever. But on the other hand stakes are high, so I don't want to sugarcoat anything either.

> Have the fit and healthy passed from COVID? Absolutely, albeit at a staggeringly lower rate than others.

The end of this argument is "the mortality rate for X people is/isn't worth response Y", e.g. "the mortality rate for fit people isn't worth lockdowns for everyone". This seems like a good analysis to engage in, but it isn't, because you can't pick who gets COVID-19. The rejoinder here is "it is worth lockdowns for everyone because fit people can still infect other groups with a much higher mortality rate with COVID-19." Another rejoinder would be "the current mortality rate is 1-2%, which means if we're all infected millions of people die."

> On the site I acknowledge asymptomatic transmission of COVID. If I am worried about getting sick then I should be taking all possible precautions to minimize my risk including self isolation, etc.

You are essentially saying you accept the risk of contracting COVID-19 and infecting others. I think that's the crucial point you're missing: infecting others. You may be in a position to make that choice for yourself, but many others aren't and can't avoid you. They could be essential workers, or dealing with a situation that forces them to take a risk. Many, many health workers or their family members have died because people like you infected them with COVID-19 after they got sick and sought care. Many of them quarantine themselves away from their families during outbreaks for exactly this reason. Please reconsider your stance here.

> A large part of my personal motivation for starting this in the first place is because of the terrible way the media currently reports COVID which is almost exclusively through number of confirmed cases. I'd argue that stat means very little.

But your chief data source, the New York Times, is already doing this. Their README [1] gives the exact same motivation you do. The difference is they don't highlight a stat that downplays the severity of the pandemic. Given this, I think your site is deeply misleading, and a prospective user would gain more valuable insight simply by loading the NYT's CSV into Google Sheets.

> It's really straightforward to not be significantly overweight and workout 2-3 days per week.

It may be for you, but many others struggle with weight for completely valid reasons (disability, mental illness, hormone disorders, metabolic and dietary disorders) and you can't distinguish them in the grocery store. I would also argue more broadly that we shouldn't value the lives of the overweight of obese less than others, no matter the cause.

It's also worth saying that while you keep focusing on obesity as the chief comorbidity, in truth it's age, and no amount of personal responsibility can let you avoid that (the opposite, actually).

---

I don't want to imply that I don't want to get back to life. Despite being misanthropic and super privileged, lockdowns and precautions haven't been wonderful for me--and it's been even worse for people I'm close to. But to be blunt, your position is selfish. I urge you to change your behavior. Many people and their loved ones are vulnerable to COVID-19 through no fault of their own, and you are putting them in danger. We should have vaccines in the next few months. It doesn't feel like that much to ask to try and stay in your home as much as possible, wear masks and socially distance when you can't, and wash your hands frequently until then. Compared to the potential consequences, I just can't see any justification for not doing so.

[1]: https://github.com/nytimes/covid-19-data#methodology-and-def...