Originally posted by d000hg
View Post
As to above post, it is interesting that we treat different categories of risk very differently, even if the outcome (e.g. death, is the same). As a society we allow the application of health economics to allow or restrict the prescription of certain life saving drugs according to a cost benefit ratio. But we apply a very different cost benefit ratio to the introduction of a railway safety system. We will spend more money to prevent a life being lost in a train crash than to prevent a cancer death. There is a Tim Harford type book that goes into this.
There may be many reasons for this. I guess we feel that a life lost in a train accident (or in a murder or a fire) is a worse thing than a life being lost due to sub-optimal treatment for cancer.
The same thing for MRSA and abduction I guess. It's no surprise that parents take one more seriously than the other, regardless of the risk score.
Anyway, carry on as you were.
Comment