If we don't want to expose ourselves to needless risk we should probably stay in bed instead of flying around complex machinery. At the end of the day they had a single failure for which the manufacturer does not deem it necessary to warrant a landing at the nearest suitable airport.
This should normally give us a pretty good indication as to the risks involved in handling this single system failure. You can disagree with the decision, but as far as Airbus is concerned he could've taken it up to Hong Kong. So how come this is such a hugely bad decision?