Common pattern. There is an X which has catastrophic outcomes for some segment. But the harms from X don't nicely fit into a linear dose-response narrative. So you are left with the trade-off discussion: freedom/benefit of majority/most vs those at risk. But that's uncomfortable.
-
-
Show this thread
-
So the narrative oscillates between panics/prohibition and hands off my X. You see this in opioid discussions too: it is of obvious huge benefit to chronic pain patients who would be gravely harmed by denial and it also facilitates catastrophic harm to those who abuse/misuse it.
Show this thread -
It would be so much better if more people, journalists especially, got in the weeds of what the findings/stats actually mean, and that we had the real discussion: how do you preserve benefits/freedom while protecting those at risk of harm? Topic after topic falls into this trap.
Show this thread -
Alcohol causes damage/hurt around the world and competes with tobacco in harm; and little doubt it is also a cancer risk. On the other hand, the occasional drinkers of milder forms don't seem to be facing a huge risk. That's not a neat a story, and not a good headline! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I'm skeptical of relative risk providing any meaningful level of information to naive readers.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.