I am probably the archetype of the straw man you invented in your comment regarding people saying the virus is not dangerous. Let me make a few things clear to you and the others who see this as a binary proposition.
This virus is _very_ dangerous to specific groups of people. We know this not only through observation but also through a more complete understanding on its spread, mechanism of action and cross-reactivity. We also know, with a good deal of certainty, that there are also groups who are at a very, very low level of risk from this virus.
What the people you so easily disparage are arguing is not that the virus is not dangerous, but that we are not responding to the actual threat, but rather the perceived threat based on data that is now 5 months old. And that by making this mistake, we are increasing danger to not only those at risk to the virus but also those who are at low risk through our obtuse response.
There are facts which can't be denied. The IFR is NOT anywhere near as high as we once feared. This is good news! We have two treatments that seem to help. This is good news! We understand that a majority of those infected will exhibit minor or no symptoms. This is good news! But we are still _acting_ as if this has a 2% IFR and no treatment.
We have less certainty, but are still researching the following. There is evidence that cross-reactivity in T-Cells with other coronaviruses is helping reduce the impact on a large portion of the population. We see evidence that _something_ has changed in the virus in the past 6 months. Genome sequencing hasn't revealed if this is true or not, but the research is ongoing. We see that outdoor spread is very unlikely. We believe nosocomial spread is a primary means. We see that super-spreaders may account for more of the spread than asymptomatic incidental contact. We have contradicting evidence of lockdown efficacy. And most importantly, we have not seen a TRUE 2nd wave. What is going on in the USA is not a 2nd wave at the community level, no community that had a large first wave is currently seeing a second wave.
Finally, there is debate around whether the herd immunity level is far lower than once thought. Michael Levitt and others are postulating that around 20-25% of the population needs to be infected to see a sharp decline in infections. This has played out in a lot of continental Europe, NYC and the UK.
So it isn't as simple as your snide sarcasm would have us believe. This is why actual debate is needed, not dismissive arrogance as displayed by your comments.