@tost Interesting, I would think it would be a useful salve, because generally speaking being a modern human in a first world nation is remarkably safe and pleasant.
If anything we tend to over-estimate the probability and intensity of salient negative effects, and there's no equivalent and strong bias towards under-rating the risks of things, so I would expect almost all revisions in your priors to be towards "I don't need to worry about this."
For example, say "there's a 1% chance you die if you step on a bike tomorrow". What would that 1% mean? Would it mean "1 in 100 people that step on a bike tomorrow will die" (which is a pretty big number), or is it a calculated chance that the accumulated sum of events *might* lead to your death? Would changing those events change the probability of you dying? It's a difficult to interpret number. Additionally, some might say "Oh, it's only 1%, so it's not gonna happen" while others might say "Hmm, that might seem a small number, but it could very well happen to some of us, me included".
Personally I would not express "danger" as a number like that.
Anxiety disorders aside, I think the point would be to have a bunch of these tables with standardized measures so that they can be easily compared.
The utility in the thing is to allow you to allocate your resources appropriately towards reducing or preparing for certain risks.
How much risk am I assuming when I drive a motorcycle vs. a car? How much risk when I drive a car vs. SUV? How risky is it to participate in a vaccine trial vs. potentially contracting the disease you'd be vaccinated against?
Since we've already eliminated a lot of the biggest dangers to people in modern life, we're left with making a bunch of decisions that have very small incidence rates, which makes them extra hard to reason about without hard numbers.
