[Cats Pajamas]

Thanks for the validation and for the “normalcy bias” research term. Never knew there was a label for it.

[Smokin' Joe]

You're welcome. "Normalcy bias" has been discussed at length on some survivalist threads, in particular Selco's writings (Search term SHTF School) on the decay of Sarajevo during the war there, and ferfal's on the Argentine economic collapse.

Many people died because they failed to properly assess the changes in the general situation there and act accordingly.

If you can't adapt to the 'rule changes'--the differences in paradigm that go with even temporary losses of civility or natural disasters, your chances of survival diminish significantly. In this case, the imposition is not by riots (although those are a possibility if things get bad), loss of electrical power and other services (also a possibility if things get really bad), or starvation (yep, could happen), but the disease itself will mandate changes in how people interact with each other and their surroundings if it becomes widespread.

Thankfully, we are not in that situation, and I pray will not be, but knowledge of what is happening and the ability to assess risks rationally while extrapolating worse scenarios allows people to be adequately prepared for whatever comes.