Originally Posted by
MSPeconomist
Someone earlier in this thread stated that 0.5% ( 2 out of 350, so there's been some rounding) of this aircraft model have crashed, but what percentage of all the Concords that were ever build have crashed? Yet it was viewed as safe until the CDG runway incident happened and possibly should have still been considered safe. Or we can look at the space shuttle for another example. One crashed (cold weather O ring failure at launch), but that one is a big fraction of the number that were build and also a relatively big fraction of the total number of space shuttle flights that were ever attempted.
It's hard to conclude much (if anything) from a few bad random draws from a distribution where the bad draws occur with extremely low frequency. For example, think about Hurricane Katrina and the "once in a hundred years" claim.
No, that's the wrong way to look at it.
What you mean is with little information it is hard to make a good conclusion. Which is correct. But do you wait til more Boeing 737max crashes occur or you do something before you collect all the information? Or you wait and there aren't more crashes?
Corollary: if you decide to wait, and say it is safe, and later are proven wrong, are you liable?