Patient information leaflets in the UK contain precisely this information on side-effects (which order of magnitude the frequency of the side-effect is). Giving the actual numbers, rather than an ambiguous wording, for surgery would be useful if there’s sufficient data.
If I recall correctly, the IPCC used a similar system for climatology predictions. It worked well there, too.
[Edit: To be precise: by writing the conclusions of their report using specified English-language terminology to express degrees of certainty, they were able to write a rhetorically-compelling account that incorporated quantitative probability data. The quality of these data is irrelevant to the example.]
A possible compromise solution to the problem of scaring people with probabilities would be to use precisely defined words instead, so
“definite possibility” = 0.1 ⇐ P < 0.01
“small possibility” = 0.01 ⇐ P < 0.001
“tiny possibility” = 0.001 ⇐ P < 0.0001
etc.
Then the disclaimer could say: “There is a small possibility of infection(*)”, and the details could be in a footnote.
Patient information leaflets in the UK contain precisely this information on side-effects (which order of magnitude the frequency of the side-effect is). Giving the actual numbers, rather than an ambiguous wording, for surgery would be useful if there’s sufficient data.
If I recall correctly, the IPCC used a similar system for climatology predictions. It worked well there, too.
[Edit: To be precise: by writing the conclusions of their report using specified English-language terminology to express degrees of certainty, they were able to write a rhetorically-compelling account that incorporated quantitative probability data. The quality of these data is irrelevant to the example.]
Why not just use the footnote? Just say:
There is a possibility of dying from a meteor*.
*1 in 700,000
If you have to read the footnote to tell what “small” means anyway, why bother writing it?
I like this idea, but the phrase “definite possibility” sounds a bit odd, it’s almost an oxymoron. How about “significant possibility” instead?
Or “distinct possibility”.
That works even better, I think.