Ross: Is it worse to do too much or too little to fight coronavirus?

Politicians responding to the coronavirus outbreak have to decide: Is the risk of doing too much worse than the risk of doing too little?

You will never end up doing it just right. Let’s say – objectively speaking – you do get it just right: You shut down the city, and after six weeks, the hospitals are empty, nobody else dies of the virus, crisis over.

That’s a huge success! But then – it also looks like you overreacted.

“We told you none of this was necessary! We’re never voting for you again!” people might say.

But now, suppose that to avoid being accused of overreacting to the coronavirus, you just tell people to wash their hands really well, stay home if you’re sick, and that’s it. And then in six weeks, the hospitals are full, the gurneys are spilling into the street, and people are dying.

Now, not only are people never voting for you again, but some of them won’t be voting for anyone because they’re dead.

I think that would be the more difficult burden for a politician to bear.

In situations where we know that the laws of nature are going to determine the consequences within a few weeks, a politician is going to err on the side of doing too much rather than too little.

Whereas it is very different in situations where the consequences won’t be apparent until that politician is long gone. That’s why our sea level will probably keep rising.

Listen to Seattle’s Morning News weekday mornings from 5 – 9 a.m. on KIRO Radio, 97.3 FM. Subscribe to the podcast here.

Follow @http://www.twitter.com/thedaveross