Oh absolutely! It's never all or nothing when it comes to measures against serious risk. There are reasonable measures to take about any threat/risk that reduce the danger to the population and in some cases might even have positive economic effect.It's refreshing to see people having a thoughtful debate. Stitches, I agree with you. But just to add to your point about car accident deaths and proportionality in public policy: many countries in Europe have embraced a very ambitious 'zero death' policy goal. While it might not be realistic in the short term (or even long term), earlier results show a decrease in unnecessary traffic deaths if some "simple things"(to quote Ron Mexico) are implemented: better intersection design, wider sidewalks, traffic calming policies, decreased car dependency, more rigorous testing and police enforcement, etc.
If more awareness could be raised for serious issues such as the flu or car deaths (which according to the WHO, is the leading cause of death for people aged 15-29, costing about 3% of GDP globally), incremental steps could be taken to minimize unnecessary deaths. And this steps/simple things might not be as politically challenged as more strict and sudden measures.
Ron Mexico actually made me rethink something I said in my post - I said if I had compromised immune system or kids, etc. I'd be taking the flu shot every year. I think from now on I will be taking it anyways. Because it's not just about me or the ones close to me. It costs me close to nothing, but it might prevent a vulnerable person from serious complications or death. So yeah... thanks to him for changing my mind.