Research results mean nothing if you never apply that research. Whether it's too expensive, or requires a large population to take an action that may not benefit them directly in the short term. Also, a very interesting effect happens with how you frame decisions. Freaking the decision as a 99% chance of living after infection causes a different decision making process than framing it as a 1% chance of dying. (The effect is more visible if you slide the percentages, say 80/20. Like a doctor telling you you have an 80% chance of surviving surgery is different than them telling you you have a 20% chance of dying. Both are factually correct, but they could elicit different responses because of how the information is framed). It's why some people enjoy skydiving, while some will never try it even if it's free to them-it comes down to how they handle risks and decisions. What makes it challenging is when decisions if others impacts your decisions and outcomes. With a 99% chance of living after infection, it's perfectly rational to say it doesn't matter at an individual level, live your life how you want, no masks, travel, etc, since your odds are good. (Yes, I'm ignoring the issue of getting infected, but recovering with longer term issues). But it causes problems for society at large. If a society is able to limit the spread of a disease (for example let's say to 3 million people, or roughly 1% of the US population), at 1% death rate, that's 30,000 people who died. But if spread is not contained and everyone gets it, 1% becomes roughly 3,000,000 who does from it. Same percentages, but vastly different practical outcome. So the challenge is for the society/countries to trade off individual risks and actions against broader social/national risks and actions. Especially in more individualistic countries, and where travel between cities/states is common.