It's all very well saying that in the office environment you have a better chance of identifying the causes, but the carrier when travelling to and from work could conceivably infect tens if not hundreds of people on buses and trains. Large or corporate offices often have facilities for staff to congregate at lunchtime etc, air conditioning sytems that could spread the infectious agent through a whole building; how about visitors or couriers being infected? A wise employer would insist that for debilitating infections, the infected person should stay at home to recuperate rather than risk many more man-hours being lost through the spread of the infectious agent.

Back on thread, people who knowingly have an infectious disease are being quite selfish going to a concert or venue. Apart from the fact that they are going to pass on the bug, it is both annoying and distracting for the artists and the audience to have someone coughing and sneezing away. However, it would be understandable, albeit regrettable, for restrictions being imposed on gatherings such as concerts in the event of a pontentially lethal epidemic. One would hope that the promoters and artists would get some sort of compensation. Despite the complaints from farmers that they did not get adequate compensation during the UK's BSE outbreak, there were some farmers who "milked" the situation and did very nicely out of it. However, performers don't have the same sort of lobbying potential.

The premise that only about one in four people is likely to be affected and therefore make stocks sufficient for that is fine, as long as your methods of predicting who is likely to be affected is largely accurate. Governments aren't immune from Sod's syndrome and they have a habit of seeking the advice that they want to hear rather than from an impartial source.