"The current panic around Ebola shows how people are ill-informed about risk. While stressing over Ebola, the media is oblivious to true public health threats like obesity, heart disease, drunk driving, diabetes, and the like."
Nonsense.
The media are focusing on Ebola because it is a relatively *unknown* risk for most, which makes it novel, which makes it news. They have extensively covered all of the other risks, and the public are generally well informed of the risks - or as informed as they are individua
I agree with OP's sentiment, but the examples given are not good examples. People actually know the risks of mundane things like obesity and heart disease, because they're around us every day. It is unusual things about which people are terrible at assessing risk.
For example: people in the U.S. and Europe have allowed the government to terrify them about terrorists (sort-of-pun intended), when in fact their risk of death from a fall in the bathtub is many times greater. They have allowed government and media to terrify them about climate change when years of recent scientific evidence suggest it is probably not a danger at all, but at least mostly a political agenda.
As others have mentioned, these things are "unknown" to them, so they suck up any media hysteria that is thrown their way, rather than attempting to rationally assess the risks based on solid statistics and other information. But sometimes the problem is that they just don't have proper information with which to work.
Another example: many people have tended to believe overstated, propaganda claims about gun violence in the United States, when according to the actual statistics, if you aren't a gang member or drug dealer, guns present little if any more danger to you in the U.S. than in any other major Western country.
I could go on and on. But the point is: when people don't know how to assess a risk, or don't actually have good information on which to make an assessment, they tend to believe whatever they are told about it. Heart disease and diabetes are simply not in this category: people do know the risks, but often choose to ignore them. That is a different thing altogether.
Media Coverage of Risk (Score:5, Insightful)
"The current panic around Ebola shows how people are ill-informed about risk. While stressing over Ebola, the media is oblivious to true public health threats like obesity, heart disease, drunk driving, diabetes, and the like."
Nonsense.
The media are focusing on Ebola because it is a relatively *unknown* risk for most, which makes it novel, which makes it news. They have extensively covered all of the other risks, and the public are generally well informed of the risks - or as informed as they are individua
Re:Media Coverage of Risk (Score:2)
Nonsense.
I agree with OP's sentiment, but the examples given are not good examples. People actually know the risks of mundane things like obesity and heart disease, because they're around us every day. It is unusual things about which people are terrible at assessing risk.
For example: people in the U.S. and Europe have allowed the government to terrify them about terrorists (sort-of-pun intended), when in fact their risk of death from a fall in the bathtub is many times greater. They have allowed government and media to terrify them about climate change when years of recent scientific evidence suggest it is probably not a danger at all, but at least mostly a political agenda.
As others have mentioned, these things are "unknown" to them, so they suck up any media hysteria that is thrown their way, rather than attempting to rationally assess the risks based on solid statistics and other information. But sometimes the problem is that they just don't have proper information with which to work.
Another example: many people have tended to believe overstated, propaganda claims about gun violence in the United States, when according to the actual statistics, if you aren't a gang member or drug dealer, guns present little if any more danger to you in the U.S. than in any other major Western country.
I could go on and on. But the point is: when people don't know how to assess a risk, or don't actually have good information on which to make an assessment, they tend to believe whatever they are told about it. Heart disease and diabetes are simply not in this category: people do know the risks, but often choose to ignore them. That is a different thing altogether.