I think the strongest possible interpretation of the comment is more along the lines of... does the cost/benefit of this decision really line up? Cancelling a

I think the strongest possible interpretation of the comment is more along the lines of... does the cost/benefit of this decision really line up? Cancelling a $350 million event means people are not getting paid, maybe those people will not be able to afford rent next month, or groceries next week. Eventually, the cost is borne by those who are least able to shoulder the burden. It's flu season, but we still hold events because the cost/benefit of forbidding any large gathering for several months out of the year is also "preposterous". COVID is worse than the flu, perhaps even by 1 order of magnitude, but COVID is also many, many orders of magnitude less prevalent than the flu. We are talking about 310 cases in the US, versus 32 million cases of the flu. So five order of magnitude less prevalent. Secondary flu infection of elderly patients related to SXSW attendees who catch the flu at SXSW result in some number of deaths every year. In the end the decision isn't being made totally rationally, it's largely being made emotionally and politically. But there is a significant cost in the aggregate which rationally could totally outweigh the benefit.