3 ms·
> "...they're for risk assessment and public policy." even for that, it's inconsequential. there are many greater and more relevant risks to worry about at a p
by clairity 6y ago
> "...they're for risk assessment and public policy."
even for that, it's inconsequential. there are many greater and more relevant risks to worry about at a policy level.
food-borne botulism has a different risk profile in that the ever-increasing centralization of food distribution can potentially unbound those risks.
> "...another now-quantified danger does nudge your average 'danger score' higher. ...more people than before will now consider this when..."
that's just fear-mongering. the risks of incidental/accidental deaths are the lowest in history. there's no reason to worry about this particular issue outside of research.
- wesleywt 6y agoWhile you are inserting the worry here. I think a person who is susceptible to flu, such as the aged, should be aware that they should probably get a flu shot before they go to their favourite team that has lost for the last 50 years. Otherwise they might not make it to the day they finally win.
- clairity 6y agothat's exactly the point: the vulnerable should get vaccinated because the flu can kill you anywhere, not specifically because you might get the flu at a game. that latter sort of reasoning is irrational because the added risk is inconsequential relative to the overall risk. you shouldn't try to time the shot to right before going to games, because that's irrational. get it before the flu season, and then this tiny added risk matters even less.