# individual risk

**URL:** <https://discourse.datamethods.org/t/individual-risk/6818>\
**Category:** probability\
**Created:** [May 27, 2023, 12:27am UTC](https://discourse.datamethods.org/t/individual-risk/6818 "2023-05-27T00:27:50Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![R\_cubed](https://discourse.datamethods.org/user_avatar/discourse.datamethods.org/r_cubed/32/1518_2.png) [@R\_cubed](https://discourse.datamethods.org/u/R_cubed)\
**Post date:** [May 27, 2023, 12:02pm UTC](https://discourse.datamethods.org/t/individual-risk/6818/3 "2023-05-27T12:02:29Z")

</div>

> [@ralphstern](#):
>
> However, in the relevant philosophy of probability literature there is little or no support for the existence of individual risk

Actuaries have dealt with this type of problem for at least a century in the context of property casulty insurance; extensions of the mathematical methods to health contexts also exist. The relevant topic is known in insurance circles as credibility theory. I posed a number of links to the basics of credibility theory in another thread. There are very interesting relationships between credibility theory and meta-analysis.

> [@Should one derive risk difference from the odds ratio?](https://discourse.datamethods.org/t/should-one-derive-risk-difference-from-the-odds-ratio/4403/541):
>
> The perspective that @Sander has attempted to explain in a number of posts and papers might be more easily grasped by substituting “weighted average” (or expectation) for “collapsible effect measure.” In actuarial science, the question on how to derive a fair price for an individual who needs to insure a risk is a fundamental one, and tools to analyze the situation from the group and individual level is known in insurance circles as credibility theory. It originated in property/casualty insu…

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.datamethods.org/t/individual-risk/6818)._