That this is not some uncontrollable inevitability is the whole point. Places that were proactive have less economic harm and far less death and illness. I suppose people aren't going to change, so the ship has sailed for much of the world, but it wasn't inevitable for vast numbers of people to get infected.
As far as 1/200 being subjectively low, if something had a 1/200 chance in killing you, would you do it 5 times a day? We can answer probably not of course, because you probably wouldn't do it once a week (or you wouldn't be).
The point is, even without any precaution, they might never be infected in the first place, so probably death from covid for this specific age group is : probability of getting infected * 1/200. So even less than 1/200.
If I'm in this age group, obviously I would happily take this chance, if the alternative is lockdown/restriction.
> As far as 1/200 being subjectively low, if something had a 1/200 chance in killing you, would you do it 5 times a day?
It would probably be considerably more fun to self isolate while taking up drinking, smoking, motor biking without a helmet and a variety of other risky activities. At least those are interesting, and they are probably less risky.
In the US, it would be hundreds of thousands of deaths in just that age group.
And 1 in 20 people over 70 obviously isn't low.