Why are you attacking a strawman here? I'm specifically talking about large mass gatherings, not a bbq.
And assigning high confidence to the midpoint of an estimate with such large bounds is the exact opposite of rational, especially when dealing with risk assessment.
I'm pretty sure we agree that it is not rational to believe the Earth is flat, given current evidence.
I'm pretty sure we can also agree that locking up and starving children is wrong.
I'm happy to drill down with you to see if we can come to an agreement of what "moral" and "rational" might mean, but I don't think that's necessary here.
I'm making a basic point here. I don't think all societies will thrive under equal levels of governance. And one of the things that distinguish societies here is the character of the individuals.
Surely wisdom and virtuousness play a role here, no?
Let me pose one for you:
Can you imagine a society that would do poorly if left completely to its own devices with minimal restrictions?
And can you imagine one that would thrive with minimal restrictions?
What are some properties that would distinguish these two societies?