Thread by @tolmasky

This is in part because people have no framework for dealing with non-binary risk. People don’t understand “30% risk.” They just round up to 100% or down to 0. Everyday low stakes decisions reinforce this, like if there’s 30% chance of rain assuming 0% and leaving your umbrella.

https://twitter.com/asmallteapot/status/1423320877609807877

But there’s no real logic there, you actually just don’t care either way. Worst case scenario, you get wet. That’s why we have this “what’s the point of living if we have to wear masks” logic: it comes from the same place as “you can’t spend your life worrying about umbrellas.”

The true test of appropriate decision making is whether you’d still make the same decision in the future when presented with an unlikely misprediction. E.g. in poker, just because an unlikely card comes out and you lose, doesn’t mean you’d negatively judge your play of that hand.

I doubt many people in the ICU think to themselves “sure, this didn’t go my way, but I’d still decide to go to that bbq at my friend’s house — I played that the exact right way! I just got unlucky!”

That’s what’s frustrating about official messaging, they kick the can and say “it’s up to you to assess the risk,” but few people have learned the tools to respond to that risk, especially with high stakes. So even if everyone knew the precise risk, they aren’t sure what to do.