> and they're not harming anyone else

It's hard to isolate the personal risks (illness, long-term complication, death, cost) from the social risks (healthcare resource exhaustion, healthcare worker burden, socialized costs, increased transmission).

But assuming we could, how many people that choose to take the risk are _really_ prepared to accept the downside costs if their number comes up? How many would accept a reduced standard of care (or no care at all) as a risk they assumed? Or would there be much anger, regret, and gnashing of teeth?

Assuming the risk requires a degree of rationality that, while perhaps more common on this site, probably does not characterize the population that would choose to assume the risk...