Bodybuilder risks

The human body has its limits, so many bodybuilders take steroids to increase those limits to build bigger muscles. Bonnie Berkowitz and William Neff, for The Washington Post, used a combination of illustration and 3-D animations to show what happens and the risks of introducing more of everything to the body.

Tags: , , , ,

Communicating risk in the context of daily living

Wayne Oldford, a statistics professor at the University of Waterloo, explains risk in the context of daily life at the individual level, because “one in a million” is not especially intuitive:

A few years ago, I was the “go to guy” at the University of Waterloo, asked to speak to local media, whenever a lottery jackpot got stupendously large (and the news cycle got exceedingly slow). My purpose was to relate to their audience the size of the chance of winning in a way that was quick yet comprehensible, which I did with some success on local radio and television stations.

Inevitably, though, the next day I would hear back of listener disappointment – that some of the fun of purchasing a ticket had been removed. Joy came from anticipating winning the prize and my exposition killed that for many, by them having gained an appreciation of the chance of actually winning.

I felt a little bit bad about this. I wanted people to understand the probabilities but I didn’t want to be a kill joy.

Important reading if you’re trying to understand the odds of things these days.

My favorite explanation of risk in the day-to-day is still the one from David Spiegelhalter.

Tags: , ,

Cancer and statistics

Hannah Fry works with statistics and risk, but her perspective changed when she was diagnosed with cancer. Fry documented the experience and it’s available on BBC:

Hannah Fry, a professor of maths, is used to investigating the world around her through numbers. When she’s diagnosed with cervical cancer at the age of 36, she starts to interrogate the way we diagnose and treat cancer by digging into the statistics to ask whether we are making the right choices in how we treat this disease. Are we sometimes too quick to screen and treat cancer? Do doctors always speak to us honestly about the subject? It may seem like a dangerous question to ask, but are we at risk of overmedicalising cancer?

At the same time, Hannah records her own cancer journey in raw and emotional personal footage, where the realities of life after a cancer diagnosis are laid bare.

You can only watch the film in the UK for now, but she spoke about the topic on the Numberphile podcast. Worth a listen.

Tags: , , ,

Reducing the risk of nuclear war

For Our World in Data, Max Roser discusses the risk and possible destruction of nuclear war, along with suggestions on how to reduce that risk:

An escalating conflict between nuclear powers – but also an accident, a hacker, a terrorist, or an irresponsible leader – could lead to the detonation of nuclear weapons.

Those risks only go to zero if all nuclear weapons are removed from the world. I believe this is what humanity should work towards, but it is exceedingly hard to achieve, at least in the short term. It is therefore important to see that there are additional ways that can reduce the chance of the world suffering the horrors of nuclear war.

Tags: , , ,

Communicating effectiveness of boosters

Statisticians David Spiegelhalter and Anthony Masters for The Guardian on reframing risk estimates:

An earlier UKHSA study estimated two Pfizer/BioNTech doses gave around 99.7% (97.6% to near-100%) protection against Delta-infected hospitalisation, but after 20 weeks that effectiveness waned to 92.7% (90.3% to 94.6%). This estimated decline for people over 16 may not sound much, but if we look at it in terms of “lack of protection”, their estimated vulnerability relative to being unvaccinated went from 0.3% to 7.3%. That is a major, although uncertain, increase in risk.

Such “negative framing” can change impressions: “90% fat-free” sounds rather different than “10% fat”.

Tags: , , , ,

Visualizing risk of Johnson & Johnson vaccine side effect

As the Johnson & Johnson vaccine pauses in the United States, Philip Bump for The Washington Post offers a quick visualization that shows 100 vaccinations per second. A red one appears if there’s a side effect. But because the side effect is rare, currently at 1 in 1.1 million, the red dot on the visualization likely never appears as you watch. The blue dots are potential lives saved if the J&J vaccine continues.

I’m reminded of David Spiegelhalter’s video on understanding risk from over a decade ago. So many everyday activities carry risk. The only way we get through the day is not to avoid all risk, which is impossible, but to figure out what risk we’re willing to take.

Tags: , , , ,

Why small gatherings can be dangerous too

A small gathering of 10 people or fewer can seem like a low-risk activity, and at the individual level, it’s lower risk than going to a big birthday party. But when a lot of people everywhere are gathering, small or large, the collective risk goes up. For FiveThirtyEight, Maggie Koerth and Elena Mejía illustrate the reasoning.

The collective part is where many seem to get tripped up. “Flattening the curve” only works when everyone works together. Lower your risk, and you lower the collective risk. You’re helping others. You’re helping those you care about.

Then, collectively, we all get out of this mess.

Tags: , , , ,

Estimate your Covid-19 risk, given location and activities

The microCOVID Project provides a calculator that lets you put in where you are and various activities to estimate your risk:

This is a project to quantitatively estimate the COVID risk to you from your ordinary daily activities. We trawled the scientific literature for data about the likelihood of getting COVID from different situations, and combined the data into a model that people can use. We estimate COVID risk in units of microCOVIDs, where 1 microCOVID = a one-in-a-million chance of getting COVID.

Tags: ,

Illustrations show how to reduce risk at small gatherings

Risk of coronavirus infection changes depending on the amount of contagious particles you breathe in. El Pais illustrated the differences when you take certain measures, namely wearing masks, ventilation, and decreased exposure time.

The suggestions are based on statistical models, so there is more uncertainty than I think the explanations provide, but the sequence of illustrations provides a clear picture of what we can do — if you must do things indoors.

Tags: , , , , ,

Minimizing risk

For NYT Opinion, Aaron E. Carroll on doing small things that sum to something bigger:

Too many view protective measures as all or nothing: Either we do everything, or we might as well do none. That’s wrong. Instead, we need to see that all our behavior adds up.

Each decision we make to reduce risk helps. Each time we wear a mask, we’re throwing some safety on the pile. Each time we socialize outside instead of inside, we’re throwing some safety on the pile. Each time we stay six feet away instead of sitting closer together, we’re throwing some safety on the pile. Each time we wash our hands, eat apart and don’t spend time in large gatherings of people, we’re adding to the pile.

A lot of what we do and the choices we make are based on past personal experience. It’s a challenge to look at a dataset that seems beyond us as an individual. So if you’re trying to galvanize a population with numbers, look for all of the ways you could help the individual relate.

Tags: , ,