I generally use words based on their dictionary definitions as colloquial terms (which is generally implied since I've not identified as an expert). So in this

I generally use words based on their dictionary definitions as colloquial terms (which is generally implied since I've not identified as an expert). So in this case, I say hysteria as in the definition: "ungovernable emotional excess". So basically doing things that aren't reasonable as indicated by health experts. This means for everyone: - Staying home in areas with no contagion - Cancelling travel to place where there isn't a particularly high risk of contagion as defined by the CDC (basically, everything in grey here: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/index.ht...) - Hording PPE For people who smoke, cancelling travel seems silly no matter where they go; they are already exposing themselves to a 33% mortality rate for something they choose to do. The worst place in the world for this virus still has a less than 0.005% probably of death (less than 0.1% of the population in Wuhan have the illness and less than 5% of those that do die). Surely we can agree that someone who smokes and fears the virus is having 'emotional excess' when it comes to risk assessment. Now, how is mentioning the total number of US deaths from the virus as reported by the CDC a 'non sequitur' in relationship to fearing death from the virus in the US? It seems to me to actually follow quite reasonably. Also, if your accusation that I'm 'against caution' is to be cohesive and reasonable, it would seem to necessitate me asking people not to engage in precautionary activities that are recommended, so I'd like to know which they are. Surely we can agree that IF I did what you accused me, it would be very irresponsible. And I don't want to be irresponsible.