Models indicate around 25% infected in the country, 37% in London.
The rest of your post, well, I'm glad that you find it easy and have lots of compassion for people who don't find social isolation as trivial as you do.
The point is you don't have to be isolated, you just need to infect less than one other person if you're sick. You can hang out with your friends on the lawn, sitting a little further apart, you can be closer with a smaller number of people, you can go for walks outdoors, you can take out at the restaurant instead of eating in. You might choose to buy something online instead of going to the store.
Some of the people who are flaunting the rules aren't doing that because this is unworkable, they're doing it because they don't give a damn (well, some of them). I do realize some people are put in situations where they have no options (e.g. poor and works in a meet packing factory, that's not what I'm talking about here though that has solutions too).
The topic in question is an attempt to stage an event with zero coronavirus. I am simply saying that you cannot test your way into a 100% safe event in a country that has high prevalence.
You seem to be talking about how to reduce prevalence in the country and shoe horning in your own opinions about people for the sake of feeling good about yourself.
Two different topics.
"There is no way to completely avoid the coronavirus whilst interacting with other humans unless it's simply not prevalent in your area (e.g. Australia, NZ)."
<snip - here you did say something about events but your generalization on top seems overriding>
"I don't understand how an intelligent person couldn't simply derive this from first principles, it's been eleven months or so now.
Do they exist in a different world to the rest of us or what? Most people I know, unless they're barricaded inside, have pretty much accepted that they're going to get it, the last study I read indicated that 1 in 4 individuals in the UK have already been infected."
If you simply said what you're saying in your reply I'd simply upvote that and not argue, since yeah, that's a pretty good observation, you can't test your way into a 100% safe event, sure.
Probably just a miscommunication.