This discussion of going off the rails quickly. The 14% was chosen as an EXAMPLE, to contrast the utility of such predictions for the population and the individual. Simplicity is a virtue in examples, so that the essential principle shines unadorned by ancillary considerations.

Simplicity is not a virtue in statistics that serve a practical purpose. And I never see policy based on a single broad statistic like the 14%. The report I referenced contains multiple statistics which cross-linked allowed officials to infer proper premises for final conclusions. It goes without saying that NYC government and health department do not act solely on a statistic that 1 in 7 die of heart problems. The fact that I have to point this out, tells of the point of sillines this thread is getting to, just in order to give a escape hatch to the poster who claims that the 14% is predictive for individual elements within the population.

Hey, it's no biggie. If the guy is too embarrassed to admit his error, he is certainly no exception, and if you want to give him safe passage, it's fine with me. I am just averse to seeing people trying to pass bullcrap for information.