There are certain things you can do to mitigate risk. Given the current state of affairs (pun intended) is it that much of an ask to minimise social activities. Unfortunately for the majority of the populace that drink excessively (yes Irene more than a bottle of Scotch a day is excessive), smoke, do drugs, don’t wear helmets/seat belts, (nature thinning the herd via the Darwin theory) etc, and behave in an anti-social way that causes a) a burden on the system via medical requirements b) a burden on society via medical requirements due to the others they take out, do need to be told with enforcement what to do. Comparison of risk or death toll with such things as road deaths are typical stats without all facts. How many road deaths are due to speeding, under the influence of something, in an unsafe vehicle, driving at a speed not commiserate with ability, fatigue etc. Remove these stupid things (yeah I am stupid but not so much now I’m through puberty)) and what would the road toll be. You maybe willing to accept the risk due to someone else’s stupidity but I would rather not.
On mitigating risk. Acknowledge that if doing so causes more damage then the “issue” you are mitigating against, than logic would dictate not to do so. The complaints that the economy is going bust and therefore remove all restrictions does not hold water as it has already been pointed out “Save lives or save jobs. The only country experimenting with that approach (Sweden) has a death rate 5-12x higher than its Scandinavian neighbours, yet its economy has contracted pretty much identically to those countries”. So what is the risk associated with minimising social activities. We cannot party, go to sporting events, behave idiotically (or appropriately if you are sub 25 y.o) in public to impress our friends?
A fair proportion of the world must be in bewilderment at people that complain about not being able to socialise as they walk the 10 miles to get their bucket of dirty water.