3 ms·

I think you are taking common idiomatic English and interpreting it as though it is meant to be precise. "Not at risk" does not mean 0 risk, it means negligibl

I think you are taking common idiomatic English and interpreting it as though it is meant to be precise. "Not at risk" does not mean 0 risk, it means negligible risk. For example, if I was standing on a cruise ship, am I at risk for drowning? Not really, it's extremely unlikely that I would drown. Could I drown? For sure, I could fall in the ocean, or in the pool, or pass out into a bowl of soup. Despite the nonzero possibility of drowning, if someone saw me on the cruise ship waiting in line for the buffet and yelled "be careful, you are at risk of drowning" at me, I would think they had lost their mind.

Johnny555 7y ago
But as long as you just keep standing on the deck, you're not going to drown. But even though the risk of infection is low, I wouldn't say that a child is "not at risk" of contracting the disease if their dad catches it at work and brings it home. I'd say that he's "at low risk", not "no risk".
- ltbarcly3 7y ago
  Again, not at risk means not at risk. "At risk" means more than average risk. Not at risk means the opposite in common usage, it means much below average. Nobody said anything about "no risk". "low risk" and "not at risk" mean exactly the same thing. https://www.macmillanthesaurus.com/at-risk https://www.macmillanthesaurus.com/at-risk
wisty 7y ago
It seems like children are 10 times less likely to get it, though that's very rubbery numbers (based on children being 2% of cases in China despite being about 20% of the population, not that I really trust the numbers are accurate). A 0.1% chance of death (or even 0.01%) is still concerning.
- bryanrasmussen 7y ago
  The problem with MBL deficiency which can be a problem among younger children is that it makes you more susceptible to catching respiratory ailments and suffering worse from them. So as this is still in early stages we might not know how it effects children with MBL deficiency, it might be very bad for them.

Johnny555 7y ago

But as long as you just keep standing on the deck, you're not going to drown. But even though the risk of infection is low, I wouldn't say that a child is "not at risk" of contracting the disease if their dad catches it at work and brings it home. I'd say that he's "at low risk", not "no risk".

ltbarcly3 7y ago
Again, not at risk means not at risk. "At risk" means more than average risk. Not at risk means the opposite in common usage, it means much below average. Nobody said anything about "no risk". "low risk" and "not at risk" mean exactly the same thing. https://www.macmillanthesaurus.com/at-risk https://www.macmillanthesaurus.com/at-risk

wisty 7y ago

It seems like children are 10 times less likely to get it, though that's very rubbery numbers (based on children being 2% of cases in China despite being about 20% of the population, not that I really trust the numbers are accurate). A 0.1% chance of death (or even 0.01%) is still concerning.

bryanrasmussen 7y ago
The problem with MBL deficiency which can be a problem among younger children is that it makes you more susceptible to catching respiratory ailments and suffering worse from them. So as this is still in early stages we might not know how it effects children with MBL deficiency, it might be very bad for them.