And here's a doozy of an article from the BBC. Thankfully it was published in the UK - if a similar article was published here it would quickly be sorted in the category of far-right news and be dismissed as pro-Trump propaganda. Since we only view our news as partisan for whichever side of the political aisle we position ourselves on, it's not surprising that anything around the pandemic is viewed that way too.
But for the article, it does basically talk about what we've talked about here - generally, for the under 65 group, we have way overreacted to this virus. The danger is clearly there for the over-65 group, and that's real and important, but that we're hitting this thing with the sledgehammer when we probably should've been far more judicial about how to attack this.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52543692
Our constant focus on the most negative impacts of the epidemic means we have "lost sight" of the fact the virus causes a mild to moderate illness for many, says Dr Amitava Banerjee, of University College London.
The expert in clinical data science believes it is important not to jump to conclusions about the deaths of younger, seemingly healthy adults. Some could have had health conditions that had not been diagnosed, he says.
But he admits there will be otherwise healthy people who have died - as happens with everything from heart attacks to flu.
In future, we need to stop looking at coronavirus through such a "narrow lens", he says. Instead we should take more account of the indirect costs, such as rising rates of domestic violence in lockdown, mental health problems and the lack of access to health care more generally.
Good hand-hygiene, isolating when you have symptoms and voluntary social distancing where possible would be needed. But people could return to work, and school - in a matter of months. The majority could even be eating in restaurants and going to cinemas.
For the non-vulnerable population, coronavirus carries no more risk than a "nasty flu", says Prof Mark Woolhouse, an expert in infectious disease who led the research.
Cambridge University statistician Prof Sir David Spiegelhalter has highlighted evidence which shows the risk of dying from coronavirus is very similar to the underlying risk people of all age groups from early 20s upwards have of dying anyway.
For children, as you can see on the graph, the risk from the virus is so small that you might be better off worrying about other things. After the first year of life cancers, accidents and self-harm are the leading causes of death.
Researchers from Stanford University in the US have been trying to count the risk another way - equating it to that which we face from dying while driving.
In the UK, they calculate that those under the age of 65 have faced the same risk over the past few months from coronavirus as they would have faced from driving 185 miles a day - the equivalent of commuting from Swindon to London.
Strip out the under-65s with health conditions - about one in 16 - and the risk is even lower, with deaths in non-vulnerable groups being "remarkably uncommon".
