Earlier quoted context omitted.
tends to is not going to cut it in this instance. If 99% of diseases are either easy to spread, or deadly, we still need to worry about the 1% that are both. It only takes one such disease to cause a wipeout like event.
I was going to add a flow up edit to add more clarity to my answer; the point is if 50% of people are dying from an airborne disease, getting to zero is going to be treated with much more importance than COVID with a ~2% (? maybe) fatality rate. People who think masks are a political tool to control us suddenly are less paranoid about that (and vaccines, and social distancing) when the bodies are bing piled up in the…
I agree with the first sentence, but not with the second. Yes, governments might eventually put more care onto reducing covid counts. But a) it might be too late. Just check how long it took for travel restrictions to be imposed.
And b) the panic that people will be in will be even bigger, especially those who think that masks and vaccines are a way to spread microchips and 5G. These folks aren't rational.
Last, there is a non zero chance you'll be dying in the next few years. At that point, do you really care about rules? The governments will impose even stricter lockdown measures. But this will cause even more unrest as people are confined to their homes.
Ebola is in the category of "deadly but not easy to spread". Yes, it can be spread but by the time you spread it you physically can't leave your bed. That's a great help in preventing spread. I'm talking about a disease that at the start has few symptoms, allowing for easy spread, then gets severe and deadly further down in disease progression.