What's more insidious: if we had acted drastically to prevent pandemic, no one would have felt any sting, and it might reduce the motivation to take drastic act

What's more insidious: if we had acted drastically to prevent pandemic, no one would have felt any sting, and it might reduce the motivation to take drastic action the next time. I listened to Richard Mueller's "Physics for Future Presidents" podcast course, and he presents an interesting conundrum: say you're the mayor of a small town, and a seismologist approaches you with a report of a 15% chance of a devastating earthquake next Tuesday, recommending a citywide evacuation. Being a responsible mayor, you do so, despite the cost and displeasure of your constituents. On Tuesday, no earthquake occurs, and the town repopulates. This happens ten more times over several years, and still no earthquakes (after all, each occurrence is only a 15% chance). Sure enough, another Tuesday, another 15% prediction, and citizens are getting frustrated. As the mayor: do you order another evacuation, especially if it's costing you significant resources and political capital? How can you tell the difference between getting lucky on the numbers, and a bad seismologist? Even if the data is accurate, how do you not succumb to the temptation to play the odds? If there's any silver lining to our failure to prevent the pandemic, it's that maybe we'll take the problem more seriously on the next pandemic, perhaps one with a much higher fatality rate.