4 ms·

Its a trade-off, of course. When the potential probability for causing deaths goes below a certain point, then the benefit of the activity (economic, human happ

Its a trade-off, of course. When the potential probability for causing deaths goes below a certain point, then the benefit of the activity (economic, human happiness etc.) outweighs and it goes ahead. If that were not the case, we'd all have already been locking ourselves away due to the many occasionally fatal things that we expose ourselves to. Take the flu, driving, attending a party, going out in any public place, etc. Plus, the venues are going to operate at greatly reduced capacities with space between parties, which has shown to lower the chances of infection. All of that adds up to a really low probability of causing death (even indirectly), making it relatively safe. When something passes our standard of "relatively safe", and we want to do it, we do. Since a counter-argument is: "You're not just risking your own life", to that, I'd say that that is true for most of the risks we take routinely, as well. An example would be driving. When someone gets in an accident, other people can die, say a bystander on the sidewalk. But there is a very low chance of that, so we go ahead and do it, even when the trip is not necessary. When the benefit outweighs the risk, we do things. Your reaction indicates you think the risk is still significant of people dying from going to these future concerts, so I would encourage you to look into some of the current numbers. Different people have a different sense of this though, and to answer your question, yes, for myself, I think it is a good idea. They are still being very careful and restrictive.

dataflow 6y ago
Doesn't this drastically increase the potential for dangerous mutations? All that analysis regarding the current strains doesn't capture the full picture to me.
- spfzero 6y ago
  Each new case gives the virus a few dozen or hundred or thousand generations to mutate, depending on how large and long the infection goes. We're in a period where the severity and number of infections has lowered, so mutation is less likely. A dangerous mutation is extremely rare, fortunately.
  - dataflow 6y ago
    > We're in a period where the severity and number of infections has lowered, so mutation is less likely. A dangerous mutation is extremely rare, fortunately. That's not just a coincidence, right? Isn't that because we're restricting indoor mass gatherings and such? Meaning that reversing the latter seems precisely like the kind of thing that would give a virus plenty of opportunities to mutate?
    - spfzero 6y ago
      The opportunities to mutate depend on the number of infections, and on the immune response of the infectee. Due to deaths, naturally-conferred immunity, and vaccine-induced immunity, there just aren't those opportunities anymore, here in the US and especially California. A large fraction of us have already tested positive, or been exposed and infected, even if we have not tested at the time we were infected. The fraction of people that are either immune, or able to easily fight off the infection due to healthy immune response, is now sufficient to lower the overall level of population infection. The fraction of people who are susceptible to serious, long-term bouts with the virus is small and heading smaller. Very much unlike the beginning of the pandemic.

dataflow 6y ago

Doesn't this drastically increase the potential for dangerous mutations? All that analysis regarding the current strains doesn't capture the full picture to me.

spfzero 6y ago
Each new case gives the virus a few dozen or hundred or thousand generations to mutate, depending on how large and long the infection goes. We're in a period where the severity and number of infections has lowered, so mutation is less likely. A dangerous mutation is extremely rare, fortunately.
- dataflow 6y ago
  > We're in a period where the severity and number of infections has lowered, so mutation is less likely. A dangerous mutation is extremely rare, fortunately. That's not just a coincidence, right? Isn't that because we're restricting indoor mass gatherings and such? Meaning that reversing the latter seems precisely like the kind of thing that would give a virus plenty of opportunities to mutate?
  - spfzero 6y ago
    The opportunities to mutate depend on the number of infections, and on the immune response of the infectee. Due to deaths, naturally-conferred immunity, and vaccine-induced immunity, there just aren't those opportunities anymore, here in the US and especially California. A large fraction of us have already tested positive, or been exposed and infected, even if we have not tested at the time we were infected. The fraction of people that are either immune, or able to easily fight off the infection due to healthy immune response, is now sufficient to lower the overall level of population infection. The fraction of people who are susceptible to serious, long-term bouts with the virus is small and heading smaller. Very much unlike the beginning of the pandemic.