I have a bit of an obsession with how much probability figures into our lives and how poorly we tend to understand it.  Case-in-point is this column in yesterday’s WSJ titled “Swine-Flu Hysteria” in which the author shows a deep and dangerous confusion about outcomes versus probabilities.  He is essentially making an argument that runs as follows: the last few times people warned of pandemics (e.g. SARS, mad cow disease) nothing much happened so we should stop worrying about pandemics.  I am admittedly simplifying, but it the gist of the argument.

Now let’s assume for a second that any flu season has a 1 in 100 chance of turning into a pandemic (I am making up this probability – not sure anyone knows what it actually is).  Then we would expect to to get off 99% of the time.  In fact, with such a lopsided distribution, we could easily go one hundred years without a pandemic (in fact, the exact probability would be 36% of going without one).  So for potential pandemics to sputter and not turn into an actual one is to be expected, but it doesn’t in any way imply that there is no need to prepare for one.

Pandemics are an example of the kind of black swan event that can easily seem like something we don’t need to really worry about when in fact we very much do.  I have written before that more philanthropy is needed to address these.  It is therefore good to see Jeff Skoll create the Skoll Urgent Threats Fund and hire Larry Brilliant for it, who is very much understands the need to prepare for a pandemic.