I don’t think we’re thinking about individual decisions we are making in the midst of this pandemic very well. Government can recommend mask wearing in some cases and mandate it in other, determine which business can be open and which cannot, dictate whether schools can open and under what circumstances, but when it comes to basic questions no one, not even our most trusted experts like Dr. Anthony Fauci seem to have any good answers. Some examples that I’ve recently wrestled with without any clear answers:

• Should my kid have playdate with another kid outside? And if they do or do not wear a mask?

• Is it safe to go to a playground?

• Is it safe to see my parents?

• Is it better to take an Uber or the Subway?

And if the government were to provide any guidance to all of these thorny questions, they would be accused of being heavy handed and overstepping the bounds of civil liberties — which is still an issue despite our generally laissez-faire policies relative to most other countries. At most, they have started to distribute contact tracing apps (I use Safepass too which counts the number of Bluetooth matches in the past week and is helpful at keeping my own score).

One major issue is that we use risk-relativism to guide our thinking about what is appropriate or safe to expect of others or ourselves. Here are examples of this thinking:

• Because he works out at an indoor gym, he shouldn’t have an issue eating at an outdoor restaurant

• Because we’re comfortable sending our kids to camp, we shouldn’t have an issue with their taking a necessary, but occasional subway ride

• Because I’m willing to send my kids to school, I should be willing to go to an office to work

Rather, in a period where COVID transmission remains at a low level in the Northeast, each of the above is a small, but incremental risk. And each subsequent action adds to that risk.

As humans, we don’t think about tail risks well. We understand certainty and an even flip of the coin, but we don’t understand actions where there is a low risk. It’s easy to appreciate when going to the Operating Room for a routine procedure, knowing there is a 1 in 10,000 risk of a complication but still being worried, but harder when the risk isn’t hard to see. Sure, most people who go to Trump rallies don’t get COVID, but some do and the risk is higher than staying home.

Rather than trying to have a reasonable argument with friends and family about this or having the CDC continue their politicized guidance, I think we should outsource our COVID risk management communications to the experts at Weight Watchers. In my view, dieting is a lot like keeping safe from COVID. It’s trendy to try keeping from doing (or eating) something for a while, but eventually we tire of it and go back to our old ways. And though what’s best to eat all the time seems to trend, we know that the best way to keep a good diet is to moderate what we eat.

Weight Watchers has solved for these issues and made a fortune, by making dieting a game and not prohibiting anything. Rather than say “you can’t eat this” or “you can’t eat that,” they assign points to everything you eat. Based upon your age, weight and other risk factors, you are assigned a certain number of points and if you keep within them and exercise, you’ll be successful and lose weight. Does this sound familiar?

So I think based upon the rate of spread in a community, your age & risk factors, we should create a similar system for COVID where the government makes a recommendation for total points per household, assigns an individual point value to as many behaviors as possible and allows everyone to weight their own risks and make individual decisions in aggregate based upon risk tolerance.

In addition to adopting the usual protocols, here’s how it could work:

• Each household should have 200 points per week

• Each household where there is a vulnerable person (over 65 or immunocompromised) should have 100 points per week

• If there are local outbreaks, government should reduce these point levels

Here is how points could be allocated by behavior (per person):

• 1 point for each trip outside the home

• 1 point for reach visit per person to a retail store (essential or otherwise)

• 5 points for a trip on Mass Transit or for-hire vehicle

• 5 points for an outdoor meal

• 5 points for a playground visit

• 5 points for participating in a non-contact sport

• 10 points for attending outdoor camp

• 10 points for attending an outdoor gathering of more than 5 non-family members with masks

• 20 points for a day of in-person group educational instruction

• 20 points for an indoor meal or movie

• 20 points per day working at an office

• 25 points for attending an outdoor gathering of more than 5 non-family members without masks

• 25 points for a workout at an indoor gym

• 30 points for participating in a contact sport

• 50 points for an indoor gathering of more than 5 non-family members without masks

An example of a week in my life (170 points):

• Sunday: Go to the park with my sons and go to a playground (18 points)

• Monday: One son goes to school. I go grocery shopping and for a run (23 points)

• Tuesday: I go for a run, both sons go to school. I take a round trip on the subway (51 points)

• Wednesday: I go for a run and stop into a restaurant for takeout (3 points)

• Thursday: I go to work by for-hire vehicle, go on a run, one son goes to school and I go out to dinner outside with a friend (58 points)

• Friday: I go for a run, stop into a restaurant for takeout and run another errand (5 points)

• Saturday: I coach my son in a soccer game (12 points)

As I reflect and think about it, this type of system does exactly what we want society to do:

• Force larger families to be more careful than younger, single people

• Require that we make lifestyle decisions holistically and balance priorities accordingly

• Think about the incremental risk of everything we do as a summation

• Limit, but not necessarily ban some risky activities