>The system is supposed to prevent people from dying, 346 people died, the system is broken, it is a fact. Of course we work backward from there. Isn't this ju

>The system is supposed to prevent people from dying, 346 people died, the system is broken, it is a fact. Of course we work backward from there. Isn't this just outcome bias though? You're arguing that because there are 346 deaths, the system is necessarily broken. That may not be the case. From what I've seen, it probably is, but it's not a foregone conclusion, and we shouldn't look for evidence supporting that conclusion. 346 deaths might actually be a very small number compared to what could have happened had the system actually been broken. The point is, it's a logical fallacy to say that because there were 346 deaths, the system is broken, and we need to work back from there. This could have been a rare combinatorial explosion of bad luck. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcome_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcome_bias