An epistemic epidemic. I think certainty kills more than uncertainty. If you're unsure, you err on the side of caution (because it's life-threatening), however, if a person is certain there is no threat when there actually is, that kills.
> _“Certainty kills more than uncertainty. If you’re unsure, you err on the side of caution.”_
I'm not sure it works that way. Lots of counterexamples.
Before [Ignaz Semmelweis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis), caution might well make doctors avoid the novel and highly dubious practice of hand-washing. The uncertainty and risks associated with sudden political changes could make a cautious individual oppose (or at least retire support for) the French Revolution or the American War of Independence. If the most cautious of pundits had had it their way, we would still not have “horseless carriages” or flying vehicles (those do kill many people, but they also take people to hospitals, evacuate refugees, airlift medicines and food, and simply make prosperous, modern life possible).
It's easy to see where “caution” lies with the benefit of hindsight; not so much when things are still being debated.
@tripu
I was thinking about the current pandemic when I made my comment.
Sometimes the cautious thing to do is change. If some new evidence comes up that indicates a chance that a change in behavior would be much safer, as with hand washing, and there is little cost or risk with the new behavior, then it may be better to adopt the new behavior while continuing to investigate.
This is what some are doing in response to the omicron variant.
