Probability is really fun in some ways and it's clear that many don't understand some implications.
When a specific action has a very low probability of a particular negative side effect occurring (e.g., less than 1%), but millions of people take that action every day, that particular negative side effect will happen many, many times every day, but, true, most of the people won't experience it directly every time.
Thus, much of the advice I'm seeing is along the lines of "Well, you shouldn't drive drunk. But if you do, wear a seat belt, consider getting a helmet, and be sure your headlights are aligned so as not to blind oncoming drivers".
The reduction in the AIDS deaths is primarily due to better treatment, not doing risky things and then insisting they aren't risky.
The reduction in births to teenagers is primarily due to fewer teens having sex, not better birth control usage.
If you feel bad about violating the rules, that's the little angel on your shoulder to whom you should listen and stop violating the rules.
If you think calling out individuals for being sexist, racist, transphobic, or whatever can change behavior, then you are logically inconsistent if you don't believe that telling people to stay home to avoid overwhelming the medical system, to wait for the vaccine that's on the horizon (although a year is more realistic than a couple months), and to wait for improved treatments could change behavior in necessary ways.
Thus, it'd be nice if people who insist they teach critical thinking would actually follow the math and science in this case instead of the philosophers who refuse to admit the distinction between a physical reality and a social nicety.
