It must, because I'd feel different if the actual likelihood of him dying were that high. I haven't watched the movie in a while, but was it hyperbole and were

It must, because I'd feel different if the actual likelihood of him dying were that high. I haven't watched the movie in a while, but was it hyperbole and were they using statistics as a figure of speech? With intellectual laziness being the defining characteristic of the movie's society, exaggerating risks as post hoc justifications of biases against "in-valids" seems possible. DNA makes more sense than, let's say, blood type or astrological sign for hiring decisions, since there is a conceivable mechanism for determining future job performance. However, I wonder if the permission society that they lived in was capable of doing good analysis. How would they cope with the relative weight of environment or even gut flora when DNA practically part of a civic religion with people being randomly tested on the street? Given a situation like the declining accuracy of Google Flu Trends over time, would they insist that the predictions were right, and the indicators of inaccuracy were wrong?