Three main misinterpretations: 1) Getting bigger over time. 2) Safe outside the cone. 3) Further from centre implies less preparation required. 1) Is maybe

Three main misinterpretations: 1) Getting bigger over time. 2) Safe outside the cone. 3) Further from centre implies less preparation required. 1) Is maybe true anyway? I have no idea. Is it an important error? 2) Is more of a problem with the chart than the people. There's a hard border. It implies 95/99.7% confidence instead of 68%. Were the graph more intuitively designed, the interpretation would not be wrong, really, insofar as one maps probability to a binary choice. 3) Seems completely logical - the expected threat is lower further from the centre. People are still underestimating the risk, but for the same reason as 2).