I’m increasingly convinced we’re using the wrong frame to think about coronavirus. The analogy isn’t in epidemiology to me – it’s driving. Every time we drive, there’s risk of serious injury and death. We do it anyway. But that doesn’t mean we say, “whatever, good luck." 1/7

There are many layers of public policy, personal responsibility, communal effort, and education that go into making roads safer. Some are laws with consequences: We have speed limits, you can’t drive drunk, you have to wear a seatbelt and use car seats... 2/7

You have to be licensed as certifiably knowing how to drive. Schools teach classes on it. The car industry makes its cars safer and safer. 3/7

We all push the limits sometimes, but we also keep an eye out for those people who just don’t seem to care about the rest of us and drive absurdly unsafely – and we get the heck out of their way and/or call the police if it’s really bad. 4/7

We also learn to adapt our risk calculus without even having to think about it. We drive slower in dangerous conditions like bad weather or darkness. We leave a greater distance between cars at higher speeds. We adapt speed limits to the size and safety of the roads. 5/7

We change these calculations as more data presents itself, like dropping speed limits to 25 in high-pedestrian areas because it has been shown to save lives. Or as needs and habits change, like adding more bike lanes. 6/7

We already know how to live with serious, but manageable, risk, which is what the pandemic is. But we’re treating it like it’s all-or-nothing and lacking in data. That’s no longer true – we have the data now to make smart choices, even if COVID is here for the long haul. 7/7