Numbers need context, but they also

Numbers need context, but they also
by FaytlND (2021-08-02 14:12:10)
Edited on 2021-08-02 14:17:47

In reply to: How many kids are killed in auto accidents annually? posted by OrangeJubilee

need analysis of the risk/benefit.

It's obviously not reasonable to outlaw kids riding in cars. Just like I'd say it's not reasonable that the response to COVID at this point is to shutdown schools.

But how many deaths is a reasonable tradeoff when the things we're talking about is masks and mandatory vaccination? I'm going to go on record to say it's as close to zero as you can get.

This isn't even wading into the idea that COVID outbreaks in schools are going to disrupt the year, and potentially shutdown classrooms, even if they don't result in death. Those that have been forcefully talking about in-person school should actually be arguing for masking and mandatory vaccination as a method to avoid said disruptions. It's almost like they're more interested in school board kabuki theater, and not the actual issue of keeping kids in school.

This and COVID is a risk to kids. *

We agree

There needs to be a risk/benefit analysis as you noted. I don't know that I agree the relative weight that tradeoffs are scored by you. but the point is there are tradeoffs.

We could eliminate almost 33,000 deaths (all ages) by just making all cars have a governed maximum speed of 25 MPH. Is people being in a rush a reasonable tradeoff for 33,000 deaths? We as a society have actually decided it is. (And actually much more death was ok as a tradeoff in the past.)

But my point was just to state this "zero risk" mentality is a really bad way to think.