> but that's just a fact of healthcare and life. It's a problem of different goals. In the variants of "Maximize net good/minimize net harm" frequentist statis

> but that's just a fact of healthcare and life. It's a problem of different goals. In the variants of "Maximize net good/minimize net harm" frequentist statistics are appropriate to reason with. From a individual "maximize my personal quality of life" perspective, I am likely member to many intersectional groups and complexities that render that statistical reasoning meaningless. You can only generalize the results of a study to those represented by it's sampling and the cold hard reality is that a nontrivial amount of people are not represented. Public health reasoning is entirely self consistent and rational given it's goals (minus perversions due to capitalism and rent seeking). The problem is that it is actively hostile to most people who are disabled, a minority, or dealing with any long-tail health problem.