I am sure there are a bunch of ways to nitpick but I appreciate the approach.
I personally think you need a drop-down for age and your risk tolerances are roughly 10x off what they should be.
COVID is almost better thought of as 2 diseases. A dangerous disease for people over the age of 60, and a historically mild disease (less dangerous than many diseases all children got in the 1969for those under 60. If older, taking precautions makes sense.
Very rough ways to think of the death rates are:
-Kids have roughly 1 in 10,000 chance of death from COVID. (1/20 as deadly as measles, which almost all children got until the 1963 vaccine)
-Parents are roughly 10x more risk than kids. (1 in 1,000)
-Grandparents have roughly 1,000x more risk than kids (1 in 10).
(a) https://reason.com/2020/09/29/the-latest-cdc-estimates-of-co... (which shows alltime numbers)
(B) https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/declining-covid-19-case-fatali... (which shows how treatments have improved outcomes well over 60% over time).
However at a society level, its only because we have become so good and safe that this disease is really relevant.
The age-adjusted death rate, which accounts for the aging population, is about 732 deaths per 100,000 people in the U.S, it has trended down over time.
In 2017 there were over 2.8M deaths.
Estimating a 2020 COVID death count at 280k, you are looking at a 10% increase in deaths due to COVID. Since most COVID deaths are in older populations, the age adjusted death rate is smaller, under 5%.
So if you adjust the death rate due to COVID we are looking at approximately 769 per 100,000 dead. A bit safer than in, slightly under 2008's 775.
So the world with COVID is basically like living in the year 2008 (with respect to deadliness).
You can also ask "what happens if we just let COVID run lose?" If you assume it is 2x as deadly, then you would have a 10% age adjusted mortality increase. This would equal an age adjusted deaths would be 805 per 100,000, slightly under 2005's number of 815.
Your risk tolerances (the bottom drop-down) are also way too low. Stating 1% per year recommended risk for many people is basically saying you should take 1 in 100,000 chance of death in a year. Car crash fatalities are 10x that annually in the US (38k deaths / 350M). Most people willingly assume car crash risk as a given.
Anyway, this is too long of a response but you need age as an input as it changes the outcomes by many orders of magnitude and you your risk tolerances are an order of magnitude off IMO (I like providing options though).
That argument has severe moral and ethical problems.
I also think you're underestimating the impact of letting the virus run loose. Countries with very poor pandemic management have seen large increases in deaths. For example, Peru's death rate this year is 156% of what it was last year. And that is only half of the year, and summer. See https://www.ft.com/content/a2901ce8-5eb7-4633-b89c-cbdf5b386...