Corona virus is taking a toll on us. The stock markets are tumbling, a large part of global population is in a lock-down, travelling has ceased to exist, and people are in a panic mode. There is no telling what tomorrow will bring, but today looks scary enough.
Yet, when we look at just numbers, it is whole another story. So far “only” a few thousand people have died in US (as of end of March). Compare that to gun violence or car accidents. 40,000 people die of the former in our country, and 38,000 of the latter. Even within the category of deaths caused by diseases, 400,000 die annually of malaria worldwide and 56,000 of influenza. Why doesn’t stock market go in a free fall when any of those causes result in deaths? What is going on?
Clearly, there is a lot behind these numbers that has caused the global reaction.
To begin with, there is the mystery surrounding coronavirus. As Don Rumsfeld (remember him?) had said that there are known unknowns and unknown unknowns. Coronavirus is unknown unknown. No one knows for sure how it is making people sick; there have been cases where the patient had not travelled to the affected countries or came into contact with those who had. Unlike influenza (the known unknown), it is not clear how much precaution is enough to prevent coronavirus from spreading. The outcome of this is clear and frightening. The number of people affected, and resulting deaths can and have risen exponentially, not linearly. That means the sky is the limit if precautionary measure do not work.
Much has been said and written on the subject already, and I don’t think I can add anything more. However, I would like to make two sets of observations based on my experience with quantification and acceptance of risk (something I did in my consulting career), and risk perception vs. reality.
As a society, we seem to accept gun deaths but not those caused by coronavirus, because the deaths from the virus cannot be hidden behind a smoke screen, as is the case with gun violence. Unlike the gun lobby, there is no coronavirus lobby claiming that you should be blaming people for all these deaths, not the poor virus. You don’t see madmen running around claiming that the constitutional rights of a patient are violated because you are preventing him from getting in touch with whomever he wants.
Similarly, we accept deaths caused by car crashes because the only way to eliminate them would be to prevent people from driving. That will not be possible. On the other hand, it should be possible to eliminate deaths caused by coronavirus without preventing us from engaging in essential activities. So the virus deaths are not acceptable, whereas car deaths are.
In addition to accepting deaths caused by certain activities, and not by others, people perceive risk differently from what the statistics show. Just like some very dangerous activities are deemed safe, some very safe activities are deemed unsafe. It is the perception that drives behavior.
Risk is defined as multiplication of two factors: Likelihood of an event happening and its consequences. Thus a high likelihood, low consequence event poses the same risk as low likelihood, high consequence event. However, people perceive the high consequence event as more dangerous even if it has very small likelihood of happening.
Think of nuclear power, which is perceived by people to be more dangerous than a coal power one. Statistically it is the safest way to produce electricity. Doing so using coal is not only dangerous for miners, but also kills us slowly due to pollution that is creates. Nuclear power creates no pollution. However, a nuclear accident is associated in minds of most people as a nuclear explosion. It would cause lots of deaths, even if it is unlikely to happen. Some examples, such as Chernobyl, do not help assuage that concern.
Similar logic applies to flying. How many people have died recently in US due to a major airliner crashing? Zero. How may people perceive flying to be dangerous? Lots. Why? One main reason is the consequences of a crash. You would almost certainly die if there were one.
That is generally not the case with Coronavirus, because not every one who contracts it dies. However, if you belong to a category of people (advanced age, underlying conditions), you would be afraid and it is understandable.
These are some of the reasons why the reaction to coronavirus is so strong even though it has so far killed fewer people than many other causes. People accept consequences of some activities more than those from others, they perceive risks differently from what truly exist, and they are justifiably more concerned if the consequences are dire, even if the likelihood is very low. Besides, we still don’t know enough about it.
One final point I want to make it is that all these statistics are meaningless if you or a loved one contracts the disease and becomes seriously ill. Telling that person that the likelihood of getting it was lower than that being hit by a lightening is cruel and insensitive.
