Probabilistic Peace of Mind

There is a common analogy.
For example, let's say a passenger plane crashes in an accident. It usually ends in a tragic outcome, and it is not uncommon for almost all crew and passengers to die. So, should we regulate passenger planes because they are dangerous? No, that is not the case.
The probability of a passenger plane causing a fatal accident is miraculously low. Past statistical data shows us this. Therefore, in terms of probability theory, there is no need to consider the possibility of being involved in a plane crash while traveling.
That is what it means in terms of probability theory. However, the fact that accidents only happen with miraculous probability and the fact that a miraculous accident could happen on the next plane you board are compatible. Probability predicts the future, but it does not prophesy what will happen next.

Cases like this, to varying degrees, occur quite often in daily life. The probability of an earthquake occurring is one such example. Statistical data tells us that it would not be strange for a major earthquake to occur eventually, but it often does not tell us when it will happen.
Therefore, for the most part of our daily lives, we live by temporarily turning a blind eye to fatal events that occur with astronomically low probability. This is not strange. It is a very natural and rational thing. If you were afraid of the possibility of getting into a traffic accident, you could not ride in a car, and if you were trembling at the possibility of dying from electric shock, you would not even be able to lead a modern life.
Therefore, in modern society, the 'anxiety that might be there' tends to be underestimated.

To repeat, I am not arguing that we should live in fear of ultra-low probability events, and certainly not that I want to peddle some kind of conspiracy theory that someone is hiding the danger. At the very least, I am a person who has lived with the opposite stance. That is why I went to get the vaccine in question as soon as possible, looking past those who were afraid, and I have even prepared a portable power supply in preparation for the earthquake that might come someday. Being afraid of an ultra-low probability event and trembling and cowering in front of that event are completely different actions.
On that note, I want to say that rationally ignoring an ultra-low probability event and the fear of being afraid of an ultra-low probability event are simply compatible.
It is very natural for a passenger on a plane to be afraid of a plane crash. That emotion is compatible with rationally recognizing that even if it is a miraculous probability, it is realistically impossible. And because modern people live in a rational world, they tend to view simple, personal fear as irrational and dislike it. This is truly bad.
Probabilistic peace of mind and experiential anxiety are compatible. And it is rare for one to completely drive out the other. Therefore, when talking about such cases, we must keep that in mind. Otherwise, at times we will simply dismiss people who have anxiety as unscientific conspiracy theorists, and at other times we will regard people who preach probabilistic safety as unethical conspiracy theorists. Balance is important.
...Just as I wrote that, it seems the 'Gacha Action Plan' I asked ChatGPT for is complete. I am a weak-hearted person, so I cannot help but feel anxious about the ceiling, which has become thinner than before. It seems that in terms of probability theory, I am in a more advantageous position than before, but that has nothing to do with me. I always make action plans in preparation for the worst.
In that respect, Gacha and disaster prevention are probably the same.