[RjQoLCOSwiIKfpm]

Remember when COVID hit and some people were saying "1% chance of death isn't much" and then they had to be informed that 1% is very high and we're in serious trouble?

Why is 1% low when we're talking about lifelong pain?

[colpabar]

Easy, because the commenter making that argument is a proponent of men getting vasectomies, and they are choosing to interpret the statistics in a way that is favorable to their position. Just like what the people you are describing were doing with covid stats. Just like what people do with statistics on gun crimes or school shootings.

To me it seems like whenever statistics get posted on HN the discussion is bound to devolve into pointless arguments. Statistics are crucial and necessary and we have to have hard data to support everything when said hard data supports MY positions, but when it supports YOURS it's obviously biased and incomplete and inaccurate and useless.

And I guess I should point out that I am in no way saying statistics shouldn't be used when making decisions. It's just that whenever I see them posted here, it means I'm not going to learn anything from that particular comment thread and it's time to move on to the next one.

[ryanklee]

In what context would it make sense to make an argument that ran counter to statistics bearing on the subject when the statistics themselves appear uncontroversial?

It seems like an empty criticism to point out that someone's cited statistics agree with their argument.

Instead, either find a problem with the argument or find a problem with the statistics.

Furthermore, I made no claim that people ought to get vasectomies.

My intention was to counterbalance anecdotal fear mongering about a procedure that is well known to be safe and effective as form of birth control.