Given the low side effect rate and limited overall impact, shouldn't the bar for deciding to take statins be near-zero? Like, the articles say if there's a 5% chance of a heart attack in the next 10 years there's no reason to take a statin, but if the statin changes that 5% to 4% (that's speculation on my part) then given the limited side effects it would likely be worth it, right?

Statins often have the side effect of raising blood sugar. So there’s a non-trivial tradeoff for a population that is usually on the edge of metabolic disease.

I know a number of people who report memory issues since starting statins. They also clearly exhibit memory issues but it's hard as an outsider to pinpoint when they started. Unfortunately, they really do need statins.

I used to work with a cardiologist who joked that "we should just add statins to the water," so you have a point.

The current guidelines for prescribing statins are based on your risk of a major cardiac event in the next 10 years (forecasted using a statistical model). But given that plaque builds up in your arteries over your lifetime, there's a strong argument for using a 30-year or lifelong time horizon.

> the low side effect rate

The rate of serious side effects is quite low (e.g. brain fog), but the reported rate for muscle weakness is non-trivial.