> Knee-jerk "better safe than sorry" decisions often do more harm than good. Isn't this kind of a tautological statement? If there's a low probability of high

> Knee-jerk "better safe than sorry" decisions often do more harm than good. Isn't this kind of a tautological statement? If there's a low probability of high damage, and that high damage ends up not happening, then two things happened. First, a small amount of "harm" happens from the extra caution. Second, it did "no good" since the bad thing didn't happen. So, by definition it did more harm than good. Which is a good thing in the big picture. To believe otherwise is to basically invalidate any scenario of applying caution to low-probability high-damage scenarios.