The real problem with the article is that it's conflating two things: the absolute rate of survival for cardiac arrest after CPR, and the relative rate of survi

The real problem with the article is that it's conflating two things: the absolute rate of survival for cardiac arrest after CPR, and the relative rate of survival for cardiac arrest after CPR (versus doing nothing). > In real life, people similarly believe that survival after CPR is over 75%. I'm just a medically ignorant rando, my naive guess was that people survive cardiac arrest without intervention 30% of the time (per the article, the actual rate is 7.6%). Unless you measure people's beliefs about this, you won't be able to determine whether 75% is a good rate or a bad one. Apparently bystander initiated CPR, out of the hospital, increases those odds to 10%. That means that a third more people will survive if bystanders initiate CPR. That seems ... really good to me? In the hospital, survival after CPR goes up to 17%, which is an increase of 2.2 times! It's actually pretty comparable to someone having naive guesses of 75% CPR survival vs 30% without CPR. (My actual guess was that CPR made a difference about 20% of the time, so all these numbers are way better than that.)