Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Feedback
View Statistics
Members
Current visitors
Buy Sell Trade
WTB
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to thread
Forums
The Social Lounge
General Talk
In one para : what's wrong with our modern diet.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Neotheone" data-source="post: 2513954" data-attributes="member: 487"><p>As someone who has worked assessing financial risk for a fair bit, I can say that a lot of conventional science has yet to fully appreciate what is well known to those into risk assessment and mitigation. In many, if not most cases, it is best to mitigate the risk of ruin even if its uncertain that the risk will play out. In other words, risk of ruin is best avoided even if all we have are statistical signals, not necessarily evidence.</p><p></p><p>e.g. in January 2020, based on conventional scientific approach, the world's scientific institutions like WHO/CDCs and their equivalents were looking for evidence of the pandemic being a risk and hence there was no ban on flights to and from Wuhan/China. By the time scientists found evidence of human to human transmission, it was too late (without going into the political reasons behind why the evidence didn't emerge in time).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Neotheone, post: 2513954, member: 487"] As someone who has worked assessing financial risk for a fair bit, I can say that a lot of conventional science has yet to fully appreciate what is well known to those into risk assessment and mitigation. In many, if not most cases, it is best to mitigate the risk of ruin even if its uncertain that the risk will play out. In other words, risk of ruin is best avoided even if all we have are statistical signals, not necessarily evidence. e.g. in January 2020, based on conventional scientific approach, the world's scientific institutions like WHO/CDCs and their equivalents were looking for evidence of the pandemic being a risk and hence there was no ban on flights to and from Wuhan/China. By the time scientists found evidence of human to human transmission, it was too late (without going into the political reasons behind why the evidence didn't emerge in time). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
The Social Lounge
General Talk
In one para : what's wrong with our modern diet.
Top
Bottom