Is it misinformation to assert that a person can have a “safe infection” when the vast majority of people do not experience life threatening infections? Isn’t that like calling all BLM demonstrations riots because a small number involved property destruction?
Yes, because we don't know which particular human will die from it outside of statistics, which is statistics, not specifics.
Saying "safe infections" is circular reasoning, because if someone dies from it, it wasn't safe (even if outside of risk groups).
It sounds like your threshold to call something “safe” is zero risk. Is that right?
It sounds like other people have different ideas about acceptable risks and weigh them against the benefits. Is talking about their choices misinformation?
Comments
Yes, because we don't know which particular human will die from it outside of statistics, which is statistics, not specifics.
Saying "safe infections" is circular reasoning, because if someone dies from it, it wasn't safe (even if outside of risk groups).
It sounds like your threshold to call something “safe” is zero risk. Is that right?
It sounds like other people have different ideas about acceptable risks and weigh them against the benefits. Is talking about their choices misinformation?