Ryan Sager argues that when faced with a potential epidemic, a little panic can go a long way:
But let me propose an alternative: When it comes to epidemics, panic is a rational and socially beneficial response.
Swine Flu, like most of our super-deadly epidemics, is probably being overblown by the media. Our brains are pretty bad at assessing risk — we worry about flying (which is safe), while we love driving (which kills far more people); we worry about terrorism (which kills virtually no one), while we die of heart disease (No. 1 killer in the United States) — and so we vastly overestimate the chances that we, personally, might get swine flu.
But, and here’s the big but: This wildly irrational risk estimate encourages the exact sort of behavior that could stem the spread of an epidemic disease.
While some actions we take based on crazy estimates of risk (Y2K shelters, avoiding flying, being afraid to go on the subway) have next to no social value, and some real social and personal costs, panicked responses to Swine Flu could actually help slow down or halt its spread.
via Ryan Sager.
At this point, it seems a little early to push the panic button, especially considering that the U.S. cases (so far) have been less serious than those reported in Mexico.
What’s interesting about Sager’s comments isn’t that Matt Drudge ran with this story on his own, which the Times and most other outlets didn’t think was newsworthy – its the affect Matt Drudge has on the news cycle nowadays.
Sure, the Times may have balked at covering the ‘swine flu’ craze over the weekend, but now that Drudge has been purshing this story for days, its front-page news on NYT.com. Same for the USA Today and Washington Post. The man can single-handidly set the agenda for the mainstream media in this country.
