yes, that would be nice to have. but surely the data we have already would suggest for the benefit of our entire society, especially children (with the link between good sleep and mental development), we should incentivise thicker windows, better sills and other quick wins now
Nobody claimed we need 100% precision (or, more to the point, 100% certainty). But I would argue the level of our convictions should be proportional to the risk and level of certainty.
To the point being made, for most Americans the cost of updating your building envelope and fenestration is relatively high. Yet if we look at the accuracy of the data (compared to the medical device standard), it’s moderate accuracy. So we’re taking a high risk for something that we’re only moderately confident will work. That’s not a good tradeoff. There may be interventions that are lower risk that make for a more balanced approach.
“Move fast and break things” as a general philosophy is a risk-blind approach.
Yes, it’s about both effect size and uncertainty. That’s science. But your original post also brought policy into play. Unless you actually know that uncertainty, effect size, and those costs (including opportunity costs), you’re just making stuff up because “it just makes sense so it must be true.” That’s neither good science, nor good policy.
Advocating for big policy changes (like changing building codes) without understanding those aspects is like jumping into a pool headfirst before knowing the depth.
Moving fast and breaking things has a place. It’s just an error to think it applies to everything. There’s a reason why it’s usually relegated to relatively low-risk applications. I doubt you’d advocate an avionics engineer to take the same attitude.
It’s natural consequence of risk-blind policy making.
The idea that we can move fast and not break things without understanding the systemic risk is naive. I’m fine with moving fast if we understand the risk and the risk is borne by the appropriate parties. Your previous comments are a little too hand-wavy to indicate a nuanced understanding of the risk.
