> For me covid is not a big deal and it should have been ignored.
In that case, how do you avoid your health system collapsing? The hospitalisation rate for an uncontrolled spread of the virus far exceeds the capacity of any country's health system.
The only option in this case is either to introduce drastic measures to reduce the spread of the virus or accept that very large numbers of people will die at home without oxygen or other medical care.
> for me covid isn't killing many people
If you're doing x to suppress y, you can't claim that low y is a reason not to do x. You have to consider how much y would be if you weren't doing x. And that y would be far higher.
Consider the argument that we should not bother with antibiotics because bacterial infections don't kill many people.
> Which ones again shows how difficult is to argue with someone when your basic axioms, values and definitions mismatch.
It's interesting that not many people are arguing that huge numbers of people would die without measures and that that would be acceptable. People tend to fall into two groups: either restrictions are necessary to avoid large numbers of death, or that restrictions are not necessary because you wouldn't have large numbers of deaths.
This suggests that the argument is not a mismatch of values, but one of whether the data are correct.
