Originally Posted by
spacediver
I agree that reaching consensus on the greater good, and deciding who gets to make those decisions is not trivial. But do these challenges mean that those decisions should never be made, even in cases where the risks are unequivocal?
Remember, we're talking about mass gatherings here.
No sensible epidemiologist is recommending mass gatherings be permitted, especially in places that haven't already made substantial progress towards herd immunity.
Show me where John Ioannidis, David Katz, or Anders Tegnell are calling for allowing mass gatherings at this point (I'm talking hundreds to thousands of people btw, not dozens).
Even in Sweden, the sweetheart of many here, mass gatherings of 50 or more people are banned.
We know enough about this virus to know that mass gatherings are a terrible idea, and in many places will cause shitloads of harm for those who don't choose to attend those gatherings.
So do we disagree about the degree of risk posed to others by mass gatherings? Or do we disagree about whether the right to assemble is sacrosanct?