Because people who think and act deliberately are less likely to blindly and actively hurt others than those who are acting on a fight/flight/freeze instinct. We are not evolutionarily equipped to handle threats of a nature such that:
it just doesn’t have a face to punch
running away is just going to result in the formation of dangerous migrating packs of sick monkeys spreading the problem around and looking for something with a face to punch
freeze looks like going about business as usual and ignoring the problem, which is good news for the invisible, unpunchable threat
Panic is what we call it when the elephant has gotten really freaked out and the rider stops trying to determine the best course of action in the face of what feels like an uncontrollable primitive mind. Panicky people tend to do stupid things like breaking quarantine, other-seeking for comfort, finding out those people are all panicking too and starting a riot instead of appropriate behaviors like staying inside whenever possible, making phone calls to authorities to report the riot outside, and washing their damn hands (and maybe sanitizing the phone as well).
I think it’s axiomatically better if people do stuff on purpose instead of acting out of animal fear. I’d even think this if people were choosing to do the wrong stuff due to, let’s say… inconsistent and unreliable messaging or something, because at least they’re thinking and acting deliberately which makes them less likely to do the stupid panicky animal things that confer no benefit but add needless harm to the problem.
running away is just going to result in the formation of dangerous migrating packs of sick monkeys spreading the problem around and looking for something with a face to punch
Wouldn’t people here be afraid of getting infected and just want to stay home? If the army was deployed, would this still be a risk?
Maybe, and maybe. I would expect to see a range of responses from panicking people acting on all parts of fight/flight/freeze instincts. And I think bunkering down safe at home is certainly one possible freeze reaction. One likely flight reaction is driving/walking aimlessly “away” from the threat (think, “if I just get far enough away from the city I’ll be fine”). If enough people take the latter action, they are likely to meet up and start moving aimlessly as a group* despite the increased risk of infection (“Those people look healthy, and there’s safety in numbers”), and I think we all know how groups of humans can act. :(
*A group, BTW, with next to no planning or leadership structure, probably limited food and water supplies, not using sanitary facilities reliably, not washing their hands often, and most likely carrying lots of guns.
As for the army, if they were able to help at all I think it would be because they were following orders given to them by an officer who had the distance and training to be able to think more clearly. Would a military presence in the street scare more people into staying inside? Probably, and especially if there were clear instructions being broadcast at regular intervals. I’ve seen some people behave very well when you take their need to think out of the equation. On the other hand, you’re going to have the folks who freak out into fight mode because they think “they’re here to take our guns!” or some such, resulting in more needless deaths. Furthermore, mobilizing a military force mixes people around more and further exacerbates exposure risks. This is not a step I would choose to take at this time.
Hm, it does seem likely that some people would flee, thinking “if I just get far enough away from the city I’ll be fine”. And as jimrandomh mentions, this would lead to more spread of the virus. However, my intuition is that 1) there wouldn’t be too many people trying to flee, and that 2) deploying the army would make that risk trivial. My intuition could very well be wrong though.
Because people who think and act deliberately are less likely to blindly and actively hurt others than those who are acting on a fight/flight/freeze instinct. We are not evolutionarily equipped to handle threats of a nature such that:
it just doesn’t have a face to punch
running away is just going to result in the formation of dangerous migrating packs of sick monkeys spreading the problem around and looking for something with a face to punch
freeze looks like going about business as usual and ignoring the problem, which is good news for the invisible, unpunchable threat
Panic is what we call it when the elephant has gotten really freaked out and the rider stops trying to determine the best course of action in the face of what feels like an uncontrollable primitive mind. Panicky people tend to do stupid things like breaking quarantine, other-seeking for comfort, finding out those people are all panicking too and starting a riot instead of appropriate behaviors like staying inside whenever possible, making phone calls to authorities to report the riot outside, and washing their damn hands (and maybe sanitizing the phone as well).
I think it’s axiomatically better if people do stuff on purpose instead of acting out of animal fear. I’d even think this if people were choosing to do the wrong stuff due to, let’s say… inconsistent and unreliable messaging or something, because at least they’re thinking and acting deliberately which makes them less likely to do the stupid panicky animal things that confer no benefit but add needless harm to the problem.
Wouldn’t people here be afraid of getting infected and just want to stay home? If the army was deployed, would this still be a risk?
Maybe, and maybe. I would expect to see a range of responses from panicking people acting on all parts of fight/flight/freeze instincts. And I think bunkering down safe at home is certainly one possible freeze reaction. One likely flight reaction is driving/walking aimlessly “away” from the threat (think, “if I just get far enough away from the city I’ll be fine”). If enough people take the latter action, they are likely to meet up and start moving aimlessly as a group* despite the increased risk of infection (“Those people look healthy, and there’s safety in numbers”), and I think we all know how groups of humans can act. :(
*A group, BTW, with next to no planning or leadership structure, probably limited food and water supplies, not using sanitary facilities reliably, not washing their hands often, and most likely carrying lots of guns.
As for the army, if they were able to help at all I think it would be because they were following orders given to them by an officer who had the distance and training to be able to think more clearly. Would a military presence in the street scare more people into staying inside? Probably, and especially if there were clear instructions being broadcast at regular intervals. I’ve seen some people behave very well when you take their need to think out of the equation. On the other hand, you’re going to have the folks who freak out into fight mode because they think “they’re here to take our guns!” or some such, resulting in more needless deaths. Furthermore, mobilizing a military force mixes people around more and further exacerbates exposure risks. This is not a step I would choose to take at this time.
Hm, it does seem likely that some people would flee, thinking “if I just get far enough away from the city I’ll be fine”. And as jimrandomh mentions, this would lead to more spread of the virus. However, my intuition is that 1) there wouldn’t be too many people trying to flee, and that 2) deploying the army would make that risk trivial. My intuition could very well be wrong though.