4 ms·

In addition to the fact that you're neglecting to take possible long-term health consequences into account, you're also failing to consider the health risks to

In addition to the fact that you're neglecting to take possible long-term health consequences into account, you're also failing to consider the health risks to people other than the students, like faculty, staff, and even the parents and grandparents of the student body.

rpiguy 6y ago
No the risk takers are taking all of that into account and dismissing it as acceptable. It is a difference in values. You are arguing as if presented with same data that you have there is only one obvious and rational conclusion, but that is simply not the case. If someone has different values they can come to a very different conclusion.
- claudeganon 6y ago
  This perspective equates to “I’m fine with masses of people getting sick and dying unnecessarily,” which basically makes you a nihilist. I guess that’s a “difference in values,” but not one on which we should base any collective decisions. Taiwan, South Korea, Vietnam and New Zealand have this situation under control without mass injury or loss of life. Turning away from those examples because you don’t care is basically the same as any other form of science denialism.
- ryanwaggoner 6y ago
  I'm specifically responding to your last section: According to CDC data, 81% of deaths from COVID-19 in the United States are people over 65 years old, most with preexisting conditions. If you add in 55-64-year-olds that number jumps to 93%. For those below age 55, preexisting conditions play a significant role, but the death rate is currently around 0.0022%, or one death per 45,000 people in this age range. Below 25 years old the fatality rate of COVID-19 is 0.00008%, or roughly one in 1.25 million. These are odds any risk taker would take. I read this as being focused on the students, and ignoring the fact that many of the potentially affected people would be in the 65+ group that is most at risk. You seem to be ignoring that in favor of focusing on the minuscule risk of death to college students themselves.

rpiguy 6y ago

No the risk takers are taking all of that into account and dismissing it as acceptable. It is a difference in values. You are arguing as if presented with same data that you have there is only one obvious and rational conclusion, but that is simply not the case. If someone has different values they can come to a very different conclusion.

claudeganon 6y ago
This perspective equates to “I’m fine with masses of people getting sick and dying unnecessarily,” which basically makes you a nihilist. I guess that’s a “difference in values,” but not one on which we should base any collective decisions. Taiwan, South Korea, Vietnam and New Zealand have this situation under control without mass injury or loss of life. Turning away from those examples because you don’t care is basically the same as any other form of science denialism.
ryanwaggoner 6y ago
I'm specifically responding to your last section: According to CDC data, 81% of deaths from COVID-19 in the United States are people over 65 years old, most with preexisting conditions. If you add in 55-64-year-olds that number jumps to 93%. For those below age 55, preexisting conditions play a significant role, but the death rate is currently around 0.0022%, or one death per 45,000 people in this age range. Below 25 years old the fatality rate of COVID-19 is 0.00008%, or roughly one in 1.25 million. These are odds any risk taker would take. I read this as being focused on the students, and ignoring the fact that many of the potentially affected people would be in the 65+ group that is most at risk. You seem to be ignoring that in favor of focusing on the minuscule risk of death to college students themselves.