You have demonstrated the truth of my statement that there is room to argue with the assumptions of the scientific model. But IF the model is correct, the impa

You have demonstrated the truth of my statement that there is room to argue with the assumptions of the scientific model. But IF the model is correct, the impacts are severe. Doubly so if the upper range is correct. And so we have the ethical question of how we should progress in the event of uncertainty. On this question some hold the perfectly defensible position is that, when faced with such uncertainty, we should assume the worst until we have more information. That a person who is aware of the potential for harm and fails to act merely because they are not certain of it deserves the full blame for the harm that they are aware might have happened. For someone who takes this position, "blood of poor people" is definitely not a step too far. Note: I am very carefully not saying that this is a correct or universally accepted position. I'm merely saying that this is a position that some hold for reasonable reasons, and can be defended.