On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 11:30 AM Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 7, 2022, at 11:47 AM, Mary B <mary.h.barnes@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> If IETF is making decisions based on risk of death, then they should be changing the food offerings at breaks (i.e., get rid of the cookies and sodas with HFCS) (and there's already a document wtih some helpful guidelines for providing healthy food ;).
There are lots of things that will likely shorten your life if you make a habit of them, but which have a negligible effect on most people’s life expectancies if they only do them rarely. That’s an entirely different kind of risk than getting shot.
[MB] It is different in that you have a choice whether you want to die because you eat garbage versus being shot. But, we were talking about risk of death and keeping people safe and healthy. And, statistically, your risk of death from a gunshot from a mass shooting event (which is 1% of gun deaths in the US) is much lower than other causes (i.e., it would work out to 1/22,000) . https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/. So, you are way more likely to die driving your car to the airport to get to an IETF meeting than from a gun. "If we overestimate our risk in one area, it can lead to anxiety and interfere with carrying out our normal daily routine. Ironically, it also leads us to underestimate real risks that can injure or kill us." And, no, none of this means that I think the US shouldn't do something to make it harder to get a gun. I think we should do what we can to reduce risks across the board, in particular when it comes to your young people (who are far more likely to be killed by a gunshot than any of us). [/MB]
I’d certainly like to avoid paying for such food in my meeting fees (especially since hotels charge so much for them). But I don’t think that this kind of risk should affect venue selection.
