Why not wait and see?

I basically take a wait-n-see attitude towards it. That's mainly because I'm not a policymaker, so what I think makes no difference, anyway. I have no control over what businesses or gov't officials do about it.

In addition, I see some folks making doomsday predictions about how it will be worse than the 1918 Spanish influenza, but we don't know that, so what's the point of assuming the worst? What happens is independent of our assumptions. Assuming the worst won't make it worse–or better. It will be whatever it will be. Why the felt need to make assumptions about the future instead of discovering what will happen? That's the only real way to find out. If it turns out to be as bad as the Spanish influenza, how did that assumption, even if borne out by subsequent events, make it easier to cope with? How does assuming the worst improve the situation? Your assumptions don't change the outcome? It just makes you more miserable in the lead up. And what if you're wrong? Then you got all worked up in advance over something that wasn't nearly as bad as you feared.

Of course, the objection to a wait-n-see attitude is that if we take drastic precautionary measures, maybe we can avert catastrophe. And I'm certainly not suggesting passivity. I'm not suggesting a do-nothing attitude.

There are two competing risk factors. Two kinds of damage to be considered and counterbalanced. There's the harm of the virus itself. But there's also the harm to the economic infrastructure if we overreact. The economic damage could be far more harmful than the virus itself if we overcompensate.There's the harm of the virus itself. But there's also the harm to the economic infrastructure if we overreact. The economic damage could be far more harmful than the virus itself if we overcompensate.