Naive empiricism, terrorism & Ebola.

I will give an alternative explanation why people fear terrorism: Falling from a ladder also kills more people than terrorism, right, but this is not what people are afraid of. Watch this to understand that we're talking about two different distributions: [VIDEO] Terrorism SUDDENLY increases the odds of you being killed by it. And that is what - rightfully - scares people. Example: Before 9/11 the chances of being killed by terrorism was let's say 0.000000.....1%. After 9/11 the chance SUDDENLY increased a hundredfold. That change in probability never ever happened in the distributions of car-accidents, being shot in the US or falling ladders.

No it isn't, in this case. I think Taleb has the best summary of this, for all his flaws: [VIDEO] In short, risk due to coconuts vs sharks is a valid comparison because we have good priors about growth rates, and they are similar. Coconuts vs covid is a terrible, terrible comparison because again we have good priors on growth but they are mind-bogglingly different functions of time.

Funny, Nassim Taleb, a worldwide (if controversial) risk probability expert, would say that you are the one which is being very bad at reasoning with probabilities, because you are putting Ebola and terrorism in the same class of risk as falling off a ladder: [VIDEO]

I think Taleb has a point on this topic - the concern is about a forecasted growth rate, not about the current rate. [VIDEO]