That single number doesn't give you the full picture. The average risk goes up with age in part because the incidence of various risk factors like diabetes also go up with age. Until you develop diabetes (or receive a transplant, etc.), your personal risk remains much lower.
My risk remains significantly elevated on age factor alone - having an older immune system. My chances of dying from a cold or flu are still far lower than dying from, or suffering long lasting consequences, from a case of COVID.
According to an analysis from Imperial College, the risk of dying from covid-19 is roughly the same as dying in the next year anyway, for all ages. Are you terrified of living another year because you might die?
What in the world are you actually trying to say here?
Are you actually suggesting an attitude along the lines
"World-wide pandemic of a novel, deadly virus? Meh. Why worry? It doesn't increase the chances of more people dying!"
This nonchalance goes against the warnings of virtually every expert in the field. We've seen healthcare systems overwhelmed in ways none of those physicians have experienced from any other disease, certainly not the yearly flu or colds etc. Do freezer trucks pulling up to hospitals to handle the spill over of dead bodies during the NYC crises sound like an every-year occurrence to you?
The early Imperial College estimates of the CFR were quite tentative, and also didn't take in to account the type of extended suffering we are seeing with this virus:
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/195217/coronavirus-fatality-rate-estimated-imperial-scientists/
A quote:
"Our estimates – while subject to much uncertainty due to the limited data currently available – suggest that the impact of the unfolding epidemic may be comparable to the major influenza pandemics of the twentieth century. It is therefore vital that countries across the world continue to work together to accelerate the development and testing of effective treatments and vaccines, on the fastest possible timescale."
Doesn't exactly have the sanguine spin you put on this. The number of deaths during the major influenza pandemics are CLEARLY higher than expected in a scenario with no such pandemic occurring. That's why the report emphasizes it's tone of urgency in fighting the virus.
We've seen just how rigorous the steps are to keep infections from flaring up and causing rising tides of suffering and deaths. Estimates have lockdowns having saved millions of people from death who would OTHERWISE have died:
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsa...ckdowns-saved-millions-from-dying-of-covid-19
e.g.
"Bhatt's team analyzed infection and death rates in 11 European nations through May 4. They estimate that an additional 3.1 million people in those countries would have died if lockdowns had not been put in place. "Without them we believe the toll would have been huge," Bhatt says."
So it's not SIMPLY a problem of a CFR. (Which is higher for most individuals than for the flu). The more the virus is allowed to spread in a society, the higher the number of people suffering and dying, and the extent to which the world has had to lockdown on normal behaviours to even tamp down the cases clearly indicates the severity of the danger presented by this virus.
And, again, you are ignoring that there are issues beyond CFR, such as the evidence for long lasting illness given the *particular* type of damage this virus seems to cause to human bodies.
So, sorry if I don't buy your "what me worry?" line of reasoning, which requires one to be highly selective in ignoring the various threats of the virus.
Yes, this is something to be worried about.