The operative word is “can”…people should be informed of risks and then they can/may choose to restrict contacts and the like. Not must, but can respond in hel

The operative word is “can”…people should be informed of risks and then they can/may choose to restrict contacts and the like. Not must, but can respond in helpful ways. Many people will be personally motivated to “do the right, and feasible, thing” and feel good in the process. If it turns out to be overkill, they won’t be resentful, just bemused. Any external social incentives should be taken with great care. A heavy-handed or meat-ax approach, especially in situations of significant uncertainty, will cause more long-term harm than good. Translation: don’t be an overbearing buffoon if you aren’t very certain about the consequences of what you are doing or requiring of others. You can be a buffoon (there is still a lot of “fog of war” on this and inaction is an action itself), just not an overbearing one. Defer to individual choice, it really is the Americasian way. (Want a descriptor for all the Americas, North and South, so trying Americasian. Too clunky?)