To dismiss them as unlikely is not survivorship bias, no. That's not how it works - you knew that and knew that we did too.
But, for example, to say "I used to jump in to rivers and swim around, never hurt me" as an argument for allowing kids to jump in to [untested] rivers would be. Sure most children would survive but we nonetheless have the bias in the lack of testimony from those that drowned, or possibly impaled themselves on detritus hidden below the surface , and died.
Just because there is a survivorship bias in testimonies concerning [sufficiently] safe activities for children doesn't of course mean that one is required to stop their children taking part in those activities.
All activities and inactivities have risks. The note of the bias is simply a reminder to take it in to account when weighing those risks.
But, for example, to say "I used to jump in to rivers and swim around, never hurt me" as an argument for allowing kids to jump in to [untested] rivers would be. Sure most children would survive but we nonetheless have the bias in the lack of testimony from those that drowned, or possibly impaled themselves on detritus hidden below the surface , and died.
Just because there is a survivorship bias in testimonies concerning [sufficiently] safe activities for children doesn't of course mean that one is required to stop their children taking part in those activities.
All activities and inactivities have risks. The note of the bias is simply a reminder to take it in to account when weighing those risks.