What I mean is that pushing the panic button too much might create a major economic crisis. Diminishing returns and all.
Yeah, panic is always a bad idea.
That said, a calm and rational implementation of what may seem drastic measures may not be.
Actually, the more I think about the UK response, the more I am of the opinion that it is a really well-thought-out and rational plan.
It has received some shrill criticism, but it makes sense to me, and if I am correct, this is what they are doing
(bear in mind, this is largely my interpretation, and I could be wrong.):
The policy implementations are heavily influenced by the
Nudge Unit, which is basically how to apply behavioural psychology to people's choices. The term that is used by its originators is
"choice architecture". When people are faced with a choice, they most often resort to a
default setting.
A lot of people have been demanding that the UK ban large scale sporting venues or have them played behind closed doors, shut down pubs and restaurants, lock down cities, and close schools. These ideas seem logical because it stops large scale congregations. However, they could have negative side effects as they might end up making people switch to default alternatives:
For example, in Paris and Spain, football games were played behind closed doors, so the fans took to the streets and the bars and the pubs and had impromptu drinking sessions. Result: Greater risk of infection
When cities and areas were locked down in Italy and (I think) in Spain, the residents just fled them and went to live with their relatives in the countryside. Result: Spreading of the virus and putting high-risk elderly people into contact
Close schools? Result: Working families send their kids to grandma.
What has the UK done differently?
I
think, and this is really my assumption more than anything, they have tried to go stage by stage to change people's default settings.
First, they have pointed out who is at greatest risk and told them to self-isolate. They have been very clear not to have Sunday lunch with granny and grand dad. Try to keep them away. This means that if and when the schools close, the parents' first thought will not be to send them to granny because they already fear for granny's life.
Second, they have told people to stay away from pubs and restaurants and to stop social gatherings. This creates the default that going out drinking is a bad idea. This means that if and when the pubs and restaurants are formally closed, the first thing that strikes people is
not to go out and drink on the streets.
As for sporting events, that has mostly been taken care of by venues themselves. Mostly they will have been hearing government warnings and unilaterally closing anyway.
I think (and hope) that overall it creates more compliance, because people's changing choice architecture makes them feel that they are the ones who made the decisions and they feel less resentful at being told what to do.
We shall have to see if it works.