Your chance of being crushed in bed tonight by a falling satellite is minuscule. It is also nonzero. Ronald Howard, a Stanford engineering professor and founder of a discipline called decision analysis, made a point of noting the latter, the risk of splat.
Perhaps best known for studying questions of dangerous thrills—formal processes, often using statistics, to help you decide whether you really want to jump out of that airplane—Howard made the point that risk is a constant undercurrent in life, whether we think about it or not. Most people sleep soundly with the knowledge of satellites orbiting overhead and cross the street without calculating the odds of a fatal collision. But people don’t blindly fling themselves into traffic, either. Managing the spectrum of life’s risks is a matter of staying safe, but also sane.
Recently, that balance of safe and sane has become more difficult to strike. Choices that had become refreshingly simple and thoughtless early this summer, like entering a grocery store or a bar without a mask, are again more like skydives—relacquered with a layer of viral risk. For me, this realization dawned about three weeks ago, after a series of maskless errands and gatherings—plus a visit to a dance floor or two—when I wondered, would I do the same thing next weekend? Should I? Could I? A few days after I was getting low to a 2002 playlist amid a scrum of sweaty strangers, Los Angeles County reinstated its indoor mask mandate. It was becoming clear that our euphoric reopening had been ill timed, occurring just as the country became acquainted with the highly transmissible Delta variant. Our collective dial had turned too hot, too fast. My inner risk calculator was miscalibrated. Once again I was asking: How much freedom is too much?
Last winter, during a similar moment of rising case numbers, and before widespread vaccination, I wrote about a project called Microcovid, an online tool built by a group of six roommates in San Francisco that calculated the risk of viral exposure. They called their Mission District home Ibasho, a reference to Ada Palmer’s sci-fi novel Too Like the Lightning. The point was that they all had things they wanted to do amidst a pandemic—independent lives with partners to see, protests to attend, workplaces to be—but the nature of viruses is that anyone’s behavior is also a threat to one’s roommates. Different desires, shared risks. So they decided to budget their potential viral exposure. Together they agreed on what was reasonable, then they each lived their lives in a way that was consistent with that agreement—freedom, within limits.
There were no epidemiologists to be found in this group of techie thirtysomethings, though they did include a few talented statisticians who could read the latest Covid-19 research and ask experts to push back on their assumptions. Their common unit of account was a one-in-a-million chance of catching the virus, a “microcovid”—borrowing a concept that Howard called a micromort, or a one-in-a-million chance of death. The calculations figured in the local prevalence of the virus, as well as the expected rate of transmission indoors between people. From that, they could come up with estimates for various actual situations, based on time spent and crowdedness and various precautions, like wearing masks, opening windows, and maintaining distance.
The numbers weren’t perfect. But consistency is the word here. Our brains aren’t good at acting consistently, not in how we behave ourselves or how we coordinate with others. We get enticed by big payoffs, or worry too much about a big risk while blindly taking smaller ones that add up to far more danger. This is especially true if the risks around us are constantly shifting, as they have throughout the pandemic.