But why not include "people's responses" as a direct consequence of the attack itself? Terrorists blow up a target and "people's responses" are going to be an

But why not include "people's responses" as a direct consequence of the attack itself? Terrorists blow up a target and "people's responses" are going to be an attempt to flee the damage. Some of them will be hurt or killed doing so. Is that not ascribable to the terrorist attack itself? It seems arbitrary to exclude that. e.g. if someone in the period before a hurricane decides not to evacuate and that person dies, we still ascribe their death to the hurricane. The fact that people decide to rely on other, historically less safe, modes of transportation after an attack on airliners is somewhat predictable. Can we really write that additional risk off as "people's responses" and not part of the intention of the attack?