We spent ages... working... for child heart surgery... such a delicate area, trying to find the wording for... random error or binomial variability..… - David Spiegelhalter

We find it very difficult to deal with... low numbers, one in a million, one in a billion... Once I have to start counting the zeros, all intuition and feeling goes. So it's hopeless, and of course we're bad at it. Why should we be good at doing that sort of thing? ...[I]t's more and more reported that people will use this expected frequency format, where instead of talking about... .03 per person year... What does that mean, for heaven's sakes. It's absolutely ridiculous scientific language for something. No, what you say is, out of 100 people... we would expect 3 for this to happen each year. ...You talk about a specific group of people, which you can... draw a... picture of... and that helps enormously. You... want to bring things to... whole numbers, small numbers, preferably between 1 and 100, or between 1 and 50... magnitudes that people have got a feeling for, and... no decimal places, no multiple zeros. You've got to get rid of all of that. You've got to get things to units people can understand, preferably on a scale of 1 to 10.

We know from studying and going... back to Geoffrey Rose's idea that the biggest impact on public health... is not by picking out the real high-risk people and maybe stopping them drinking. It's by reducing the exposure of the vast mass of people at intermediate risk. So... the biggest impact on public health would be if everybody drank a little bit less... But the problem... is the Rose paradox... the very people you want to change the behavior [of] are the ones who don't see why they should change their behavior, because the impact is minimal. They won't notice the benefits. You're asking them to give up something they enjoy for the benefit... they will... never notice... [I]t's only noticeable when... multiplied... ten million times./* Understanding Risk (Mar 24, 2020) */Ref: "a large number of people at a small risk may give rise to more cases of disease than the small number who are at

In the trials that led to the vaccines... adverse events were reported by 38% of those receiving the real vaccine... 28% of those who received the control [dummy, or fake vaccine, of which some were meningitis vaccine] also reported a side-effect. ...[F]ewer than 1% reported a serious adverse event, and of these... slightly more had received the dummy than the active vaccine. ...So there was no evidence of increased risk ...