I think there are three axes here, not two: what are the possible events (what carbonel calls threats); how likely are they; and how harmful might they be. And both how likely and how harmful are ranges: seatbelts don't reduce the chance of a car crash, but they mean the driver is more likely to survive and even walk away uninjured. A flu shot reduces my chances of getting sick, as does good hygiene, but if I get the flu anyway it might still be bad. Etc.
And I think we tend to collapse that into two things rather than three: usually by thinking about the likelihood of an event but not how dangerous it is, or vice versa, and sometimes by assuming that the set of possible problems doesn't change. This is tangential to what you're saying about infant care, though.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
timeasmymeasure
no subject
And I think we tend to collapse that into two things rather than three: usually by thinking about the likelihood of an event but not how dangerous it is, or vice versa, and sometimes by assuming that the set of possible problems doesn't change. This is tangential to what you're saying about infant care, though.