| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
| --- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---
Hi Rojan, On 9/5/21, 9:07 PM, "Rojan Chitrakar" <rojan.chitrakar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Hi Dan, Thanks for the insightful statistics; I didn’t know that the risk of death by chocking on food is so high; I will be more careful while eating henceforth
😊 The point is not that you should become alarmed over the possibility of choking on food, but that you should but risk into perspective. If you didn't freak out over eating in a restaurant, or driving in a car, or walking down the street
(where you are at a greater risk of death in a pedestrian accident or at a roughly equal risk of being hit by lightning) then why are you freaking out now? While I understand that we all would love to get back to F2F meetings asap, at least for me as an international participant, I believe the pre-departure requirements (PCR Test within 48 hours etc.) and the 14 –
21 days quarantine requirement upon return to home country (likely on personal expense) is a bigger concern (than possible infection). Well, H.L. Mencken once said: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an
endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”
Now I don't want to say that COVID is imaginary but we are definitely being kept alarmed by an endless series of hobgoblins on the part of our rulers (if you haven't gotten enough of the "delta variant" just wait for the "mu variant"!).
But why are you alarmed and clamorous to be led to safety over something whose risk is so miniscule that you have ignored it in the past? That's the question.
Perhaps it would be good if we also collect the reasons for people voting No from next rounds of Poll. It may provide more insight. I don't think it will. The point I was making is that the risk people are obsessing over is significantly less than the risk of things they have engaged in, and continue to engage in. So they should address this risk like they addressed
similar risk 2 years ago or 5 years ago. The biggest risk of meeting in person is not COVID, it's getting in an automobile accident on the way to the meeting. And since we didn't treat that as being something so risky that we should not meet in person then
I don't see why we should treat COVID as a reason to not meet. regards, Dan. -- "the object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." – Marcus Aurelius To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11 list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11&A=1 |