3 ms·

> But it is, nevertheless, risky. But this assumes there is no risk to not doing it, which is false. Getting sick, suffering long term damage to your body, or

> But it is, nevertheless, risky. But this assumes there is no risk to not doing it, which is false. Getting sick, suffering long term damage to your body, or dying are all very real risks of covid-19 that we already know about. We also have no idea what all the long term less evident negative effects are from covid-19. We have no idea if an asymptomatic covid infection does some sort of long term damage. So we are weighing the risk of treatment against the risk of the disease. People are naturally biased against active risk when compared to passive risk, so it is natural allow a high passive risk while worrying about a low active risk, but they are both just as real.

ben_w 5y ago
There’s also the second-order problem of normal people generally being bad at statistics[0], and therefore a significant number (even when a minority) assuming that any report that “one specific vaccine turns out to be harmful” implies “the general concept of vaccination is bad”. We need people to be confident in the long-term, as well as to have a solution quickly in the short-term. [0] hence, for example, the use of the word “obscure” in the headline “The obscure maths theorem that governs the reliability of Covid testing”: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/18/obscure-maths-bayes-theorem-reliability-covid-lateral-flow-tests-probability https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/18/obscure-maths-...
- Robotbeat 5y ago
  But I’m not sure the hyper risk averseness actually helps normal people to have a more realistic perspective on statistical risk. When people see a drug or vaccine that’s put on pause out of an abundance of caution, they don’t think, “oh, look how careful they’re being! I think I’ll trust their process more.” They think, “Wow, look how inconsistent and unreliable this is! I don’t know if I can trust the FDA or vaccines at all!” So I’m skeptical of folks using 2nd order arguments about why going beyond rational approaches to risk is a good idea. People see overly risk-averse behavior by the FDA as evidence that the risk is actually high (relative to other stuff in their lives).

ben_w 5y ago

There’s also the second-order problem of normal people generally being bad at statistics[0], and therefore a significant number (even when a minority) assuming that any report that “one specific vaccine turns out to be harmful” implies “the general concept of vaccination is bad”. We need people to be confident in the long-term, as well as to have a solution quickly in the short-term. [0] hence, for example, the use of the word “obscure” in the headline “The obscure maths theorem that governs the reliability of Covid testing”: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/18/obscure-maths-bayes-theorem-reliability-covid-lateral-flow-tests-probability https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/18/obscure-maths-...

Robotbeat 5y ago
But I’m not sure the hyper risk averseness actually helps normal people to have a more realistic perspective on statistical risk. When people see a drug or vaccine that’s put on pause out of an abundance of caution, they don’t think, “oh, look how careful they’re being! I think I’ll trust their process more.” They think, “Wow, look how inconsistent and unreliable this is! I don’t know if I can trust the FDA or vaccines at all!” So I’m skeptical of folks using 2nd order arguments about why going beyond rational approaches to risk is a good idea. People see overly risk-averse behavior by the FDA as evidence that the risk is actually high (relative to other stuff in their lives).