In the so-called panic vs. nonchalance debate, each side is in effect working to prove itself wrong. Predicting either outcome influences behavior in a way that makes itself less likely to be true. There can be no neutral observer, no simple wait-and-see.
Imagine then a ways down the road, and compare the two possible failed predictions: "you freaked out and embarrassed yourself and damaged the economy over nothing" — possibly because the freakout helped stop the outbreak — versus... well, what's happening right now in Italy.
Each choice could be a mistake, each has huge potential costs, and each entails the possibility of later eating crow. We have to choose one of these two timelines, or some version in between. And will never know with absolute certainty after the fact which was right.
My own reading of the situation is that there is now not only overwhelming evidence suggesting which of these two mistakes is more likely, but a clear rational, economic, moral case for risking one sort of mistake in order to avoid the other.
The narratives in favor of each choice are already set. All I'll say further is that only one of these sides seems largely blithe not only to its own effect on the outcome, but to the possibility that there is a hard tradeoff to be reasoned about at all.
That side, so far as I have seen, is not making a rational case for why we should risk one sort of mistake to avoid the other. It is simply sticking its fingers in its ears, rolling its eyes, smirking as the wave rushes toward it and proclaiming it hasn't arrived yet.
The self-described anti-panic caucus, that is, is not arguing, "What's happening in Italy may not happen here because of X and the harm of trying to prevent it is too great." Its argument, rather, is a combination of "tomorrow is never different from today" and "lol."
The debate over "panic," in any case, is not a real debate. The premise is that concern, and proposals to act against a looming threat, are merely emotional, irrational. Fine — but then they cannot listen to reason either, and the appeals against them are no more rational.
Imagine if, claiming to believe that all of your fellows have lost their minds, you decided to make them see the light by... writing an op-ed. Either you are actually in the same boat with them, or else your claim is not sincere, and masks another purpose.
Thread unrolled: threadreaderapp.com/thread/1237852…
