> The whole point is the statistical relevance of it on accessing such a risk - not it being some kind of absolute law.

Someone letting the whole point fly over one's head again. You have no statistics! You're just using some empty law to support lazy thinking

> to the lack of absolute guarantees

That's just your second straw man. I know these "laws", were they true, wouldn't be absolute. You just can't understand that you don't have any data to support your claim, so when I point that out, you mislead yourself into thinking I demand absolutes