I got the math wrong, more like 400, but still: yes, the group is at significantly lower risk of death. What would you say is a valid explanation of "let's make things more open" to the people close to those young adults who died? Personally I'm lost for words, but maybe I'm alone? It just feels very easy to say "the risk is low", but what about if YOU were a high risk? What if YOU had HIV or other immune system issues? What if you're allergic to the vaccine and have respiratory problems? Yes, it's a TINY group. But can you honestly say you'd be OK with reading things that imply you literally don't matter to those around you. I'm not even talking about some vague BS "my fellow man" type s**, just imagine your dorm neighbor has HIV which he got from his mom at birth, would you be cool with open measures? That's not a non-existent person, these people are real.

The rationale is that the CDC measures have proven ineffective and they've shown to not have health as their priority, to say the least. The shift to 5 days quarantine came a few days after an urge from the Delta CEO, I believe. Fauci's own justification did not involve much health, it was all about the economy. The CDC was also ignored by the very same people saying that we should listen to the CDC now, just like vice versa. Yet, you can look at the data and see that the US had 1mm cases in a single day and ICUs are starting to get overwhelmed again. Not days after the CDC's measures.

And yes, the colleges might be doing this to cover their ass, but if the end result is lessening the spread of a brand new disease that has already killed a lot and severely damaged many others, I'm OK with that.

TLDR: people are still brushing off the death of a large number of young adults because they don't want to be inconvenienced. Now might even be too late, but I'm personally not a fan of "ay man, we tried, let's just run it and see how it goes" when it comes to this.