The unsexy somewhere-in-between seriousness of coronavirus

Accepting the mass media’s tenor on any particular issue is one of the most common personal errors of our time. Serious as well, because it steals our peace and hampers our innate ability to accurately assess life’s threats. Nobody with their hair on fire ever solved a Sudoku puzzle, the Moving Sofa Problem, the Twin Prime Conjecture, or if it’s a serial killer that’s rattling your window on a windy night. There is a place for emotion, but it comes after reason, not before.

Watching the news cycle progress on Wednesday was surreal, as I witnessed stories of major event cancellations, attendee bans and travel restrictions cascade across social media news feeds and the networks’ lower thirds. Thursday followed with a seeming exponential expansion of these developments. The stock markets responded with significant and historic losses. Behind the discouraging ticker, millions of Americans lost trillions of dollars in their retirement funds and investment portfolios. Those were not just numbers on a screen.

No doubt, many people will lose their jobs and suffer economically due to the mass reaction to a pandemic waxing across the globe.

But, like so many other issues, the media’s hysterics shove before us a portrayal that morphs into a false choice: Coronavirus is either an apocalyptic pestilence or — for many who simply reject that alarmism — just another bug a few old people die from each year. There’s a very slight chance (sarcasm intended) that our concern should fall somewhere in between.

Somehow novel and anomalous threats feel more frightening than more common dangers. Mass shootings cause a minuscule fraction of gun deaths, but they drive the narrative far more than the combined deaths from gangs, drugs, domestic disputes, suicides and accidents. In the same way, we’ve just become accustomed to influenza and the tens of thousands of souls it takes from us every year. It’s become an acceptable loss baked into our expectations. It’s not sexy anymore. But for every coronavirus death in the United States this year, around 200 people have died from the flu — none of whom get a headline.

I understand that we are just on the leading edge of this pandemic, with a number of unknown variables. We’re still learning how it spreads and how long the virus survives outside a human host. Medical personnel continue to search for the best treatment protocol. But the set of fresh-known variables is actually very encouraging. Infected children seem to fare extremely well. Like with the flu — many healthy adults are only mildly symptomatic before recovery. In fact, many experts believe the healthy population has handled the virus so well, there are likely thousands of uncounted cases. If true, coronavirus’ mortality rate is far lower than we first feared.

Of course, we need to protect with vigilance the elderly and infirm, and we can do that. We can do that without collapsing our markets and chopping to pieces our peace of mind, just by being focused, proactive, selective and prudent.

I’ve heard a strain of thought from my radio listeners and online antagonists defending mass cancellations that it’s “better to be safe than sorry.” Really? Reacting in a way that causes widespread panic, dramatically alters our day-to-day lives, wrecks retirement plans and leads to layoffs is the “safe” course of action? I’m not sure I like that definition of “safe.”

In fact, coronavirus itself seems to be a far smaller threat to your life than the mass public reaction is to your way of life.

Associated Press award-winning columnist Neal Larson of Idaho Falls is a conservative talk show host on KID Newsradio 106.3 and 92.1, heard weekday mornings from 6:00 to 10:00. Read more of his work and contact him at www.neallarson.com.