Around the world, people are wrestling with the complicated reality of the pandemic. With worsening conditions and continued loss of life, we are forced to consider how our minds assess risk and why we each perceive the danger of the virus so differently.

Of course, attitudes regarding COVID-19 cannot be separated from our political ideologies, belief systems and values. However, how we each react to the threat of the virus goes beyond politics and identity.

But why do some of us process the risk so differently?

Although we are all hearing the same words — deadly, infectious, high risk, mortality rate, etc. — some people still feel detached from the pandemic and the very real implications it has on our lives. This is, in part, because the circumstances of the past year are so exceptionally unfamiliar and scary some people disassociate from reality.

That mindset, intentional or not, has serious consequences. The truth is, some people simply do not acknowledge a threat until they experience it themselves — a sad and disheartening truth.

There is a divide between what we fear and the real dangers we face.

To better understand this idea, we can examine the nationwide paranoia Steven Spielberg’s “Jaws” inflicted on the general public in 1975. There is a serious discrepancy between how afraid of sharks people were at the height of the film’s popularity and how afraid of sharks they ought to have been — there are only about 10 fatal shark attacks each year globally.

To put this in perspective, more people are killed yearly from falling coconuts.

So, what exactly makes us prioritize certain threats, and why does the word “lethal” spark variant reactions in all of us?

“Jaws” painted a vivid picture of the experience of a shark attack and thus evokes a more permanent and impactful emotional response than reading statistics — regardless of how severe — ever could. The issue becomes personal and ingrained.

Consequently, the risks we emphasize in our minds — especially when adopted as popular themes in movies and media — are vastly over exaggerated.

Although we might like to think our perception of risk comes from a place of logic and reason, our choice of what to fear and when to fear is heavily reliant on our emotions.

When it comes to the pandemic, we forget to consider our perception of danger is often based solely on inherent emotion, which is part of why some people may not perceive the virus to be as threatening as it truly is.

Because people cannot see COVID-19, they fear it less.

If our emotions are conditioned by experience, and none of us have ever experienced a worldwide pandemic before, how can we trust our own feelings? Our knowledge and feelings form the filter through which we view life, understand situations and carry out judgments.

But there are too many circumstances in which our emotions can and do deceive us. We should not depend on them to determine the danger that the virus presents.

Often, we are only aware of the consequences of our own actions. As a result, our ability to perceive risk is limited to only ourselves, not others.

But the pandemic is different — the consequences of contracting the virus extend beyond the individual, therefore compounding the virus’ risk. Our minds are not capable of perceiving the full extent of danger because we are not evolved to prioritize others’ safety as we do our own.

The question is: How do we use this knowledge to prepare for the future? Understanding the limitations of our own perceptions is a key aspect of objectively evaluating the threats we face.