Indeed, the "do the math" approach is an interpretation itself-- that is the so-called "ensemble interpretation", which holds that the purpose of quantum mechanics is not to describe reality in detail but rather to predict the outcome of a repeated experiment on an ensemble of quantum systems. In short, this approach says that quantum mechanics is inherently a theory aimed at a statistical outcome, so we do not have a "problem to solve" when all we get from it is statistical expectations. As this is actually the way quantum mechanics is really used in all examples of scientific experiments, this interpretation represents science with the minimum of added bells and whistles-- "just the facts ma'am".

As many of you know by now, I see all other interpretations of quantum mechanics as taking the science of QM and attaching a scientifically useless component of magical and untestable thinking. To underscore this, I would point out that to my knowledge, there is not one single experiment that can actually be carried out scientifically that distinguishes any of these "interpretations" one iota. So why would anyone trained to think like a scientist believe that adding arbitrary flagellum to one will make it "more right" than it was without? It really speaks to what we're about here-- do we want to support predictions and guide new experiments to do the hard work of gaining more mastery over mystery, or are we just shooting for a "magic bullet" sensation of feeling that mastery without any actual evidence we really have it?