I agree.

tim's wife wrote:

Here's the thing about statistics. I know 2 men whose wives and families were told they had a 0% chance of survival. I don't know how a doctor can say that unless the patient is already gone or the doctor's first name is "almighty" and he's got a hippy looking guy standing next to him in a loin cloth with holes in his hands and feet. Anyway, they are both fine today.
The morals of this story.... statistics are a waste, doctors shouldn't play God, and don't get pancreatitis(what they both had.)

I ultimately agree with you on the statistical issues. I use them mostly as a means of measuring risk, not results. I think lots of people take mathematics as an absolute, not as the vague indicator it most often represents. Pure numbers show simple values. Percentages only suggest potential trends for a specific outcome. Mathematics is the study of history.

There is no future in numbers. Feel free to quote me.

However, speaking both mathematically and historically, LIFE has had a 100% death rate over a lifetime. The trick is for individuals to avoid hitting the jackpot in a foreseeable time period. Thus, our attention to risk and statistics.

When I actively raced motorcycles, my mortality risk was below 1% for that activity. Now my mortality risk is above 30% from uncontrolled outside infections.

Suddenly, an 8 year old is MANY times more dangerous to me than Pacific Raceways' turn one at 157 miles an hour. And yes, I've done that on two wheels, but I won't hug my nephews next weekend. The statistical risk is simply too high.

Life's strange that way. Statistics prove it.