Earlier quoted context omitted.
Such decisions cannot be made in a binary, absolutist way. Risk is reduced to some minimal level, not to zero. The risk here was very low.
And you know this risk was low because? Are you saying that you had more information on this than those agencies tracking the reentry? Otherwise you are speculating.
How valuable is that? We can determine that using the concept of the "statistical value of a human life". For example, the NRC assigns a human life a statistical value of $9M when determining of the cost of some nuclear safety improvement is justified. This is similar to the value used for determining if traffic safety improvements are worthwhile or if medical procedures are justified.
Multiplying, this is saying that it's unacceptable that the cost of a reentry be as a little as $900. This seems quite unreasonable: the cost of avoiding uncontrolled entry should often be much higher than this. And indeed, if you look at what NASA actually does, it often gives wavers of this requirement. This tells me the requirement is of dubious legitimacy, existing more for PR purposes than because it's good policy.
I doubt the Chinese care about the political optics enough to waste their time avoiding such a low expected cost outcome. Nor should airlines cancel flights to avoid something like that either -- the cost far exceeds the expected benefit.