4 ms·
TLDR The article talks about 3 types of risk 1. The odds you will get hit. 2. The average consequences of getting hit. 3. The tail-end consequences of getti
by ram_rar 6y ago
TLDR
The article talks about 3 types of risk
1. The odds you will get hit.
2. The average consequences of getting hit.
3. The tail-end consequences of getting hit.
It claims that tail-end consequences which are low probability , high impact events like coronavirus pandemics are all that matter.
One thing, I learnt from insurance industry is that a lot of people underestimate the odds of getting hit. We are inherently reactive creatures and not proactive.
- elyobo 6y agoI'm largely uninsured. * I insure my car, because I'm not a good driver - I don't generally drive though, and would prefer to go without, but my wife wants one even though it would be cheaper to Uber everywhere that we actually travel. * I own an apartment, and building corp levies include insurance on the building (but don't insure contents). This is an insurance I would keep even if it wasn't mandatory; the tail risk is too expensive for me to recover from. * I have health insurance (in Australia, where the public health system is good) only for tax reasons (it would cost me almost as much _not_ to have insurance). Public health system is sufficient that this would not generally be required. I should probably insure more (life, income protection, probably home contents, maybe but probably not actually useful health insurance).
- mrslave 6y agoRecommended 5 minute read unless you, like the author, spent most of your childhood skiing. It's clear writing style and unusual setting made it worthwhile for me. It's not sufficient only to consider the probability of a (binary) outcome. What's the severity? I did some serious camping as a teenager and despite being mere children, we were cognizant of the consequences of not paying attention as several other teenagers had previously died doing some of the same activities.