1/ The case against panic: Why we need to be a little more Vulcan than usual.

2/ During the epidemic, I've seen a lot of strong statements. "He wants to kill people for profits." "Masks do nothing."

3/ Such statements indicate panic more than wisdom. Epidemics are the exact kind of issue that requires people to assess risk and consider trade offs.

4/ For example, epidemics are transmitted through social contact, but stopping all social contacts leads to other bigger problems, like mass unemployment and depression.

5/ Also, epidemics are "slow motion" compared to many other disasters and they unevenly affect people. So we have some time to mobilize resource and target intervention.

6/ The study of epidemics require consistent application of research principles, like randomly sampling people, and tracing cases.

7/ Put it all together - a relatively slow process, big impacts, complex trade-offs, the need for careful (but timely) measurement. Panic is not the way to proceed.

8/ This especially important as people think about re-opening. It's not workers vs. owners, or real people vs. egg heads, it's about getting a realistic sense of risk.

9/ Permanent closure is not an option. But the issue is how much economic and social damage can we take before it outweighs the damage from the epidemic.

10/ It's a decision that has no "bright line" answer. That is why panic and exaggerated false choice are not helpful. Instead, it's about tamping down emotion so we can collect good data.

11/ For that reason, people who are more comfortable and stable (like me - a tenured professor) have an obligation to eschew panic rhetoric. Instead, we have to fall back on the tools that we would use to solve any problem. We also have to others that panic is not needed.