Yep - that's what I was saying yesterday – the best time to panic is now.
If the virus reaches your town, people *will* panic.
Better to panic now, so that the supply chain is hit in a staggered manner and people crowd supermarkets while chances of crowd contagion are low.
If the virus reaches your town, people *will* panic.
Better to panic now, so that the supply chain is hit in a staggered manner and people crowd supermarkets while chances of crowd contagion are low.
People saying not to panic now are being irresponsible unless they know the city won't be infected (they can't)
Your city should either panic with its borders (to reduce chances of infection) or with its supplies & behaviors (to mitigate the impact of infection). Can't be none.
Your city should either panic with its borders (to reduce chances of infection) or with its supplies & behaviors (to mitigate the impact of infection). Can't be none.
Of course, I'm relaying on the fact that:
- If we tell people to panic today, only a few will → inconvenient & staggered impact.
- If we do not tell people to panic today and the virus hits hard and suddenly, everyone will panic at the same time → dangerous & paralyzing impact.
- If we tell people to panic today, only a few will → inconvenient & staggered impact.
- If we do not tell people to panic today and the virus hits hard and suddenly, everyone will panic at the same time → dangerous & paralyzing impact.
And of course, in the unlucky case that your city already got hit hard, consider the tradeoffs between going to the supermarket when everyone else goes (and risk of infection is high) and going later (but supplies might be over).
For everyone else: 👆 is the scenario to avoid
For everyone else: 👆 is the scenario to avoid
I made a table to compare scenarios, regarding groceries panic-buying. 
Stuff that happens when media keep telling you not to panic until it’s too late, creating more harm and defeating subsequent efforts of containment 👇
