Be reasonable.

Bad news is reported more, if bad things happen, you need to act fast so it's good to pay close attention to bad news, that's what news organizations want you to think.

And then you commented that as an educated scientist, you also think we should pay close attention to bad news. At least that's how I took it.

When I wrote my comment, my intended meaning was more specific to the current situation: I really wish people would be more united in taking action in the face of an infectious disease, the transmission of which is entirely preventable in the aggregate.

These are all things that we have to act on, as individuals. They are all bad news.

Then you have the rest of the 99.999% that you don't need to know, but you do need to know the very few stories. And for that you have to go through all the other ones.

That is actually a terrible heuristic. The need to “do something fast” leads to tremendous amounts of wasted time and resources and often a codified public policy that is unproductive or counterproductive.

The bias to action over inaction exists, among other reasons, because it plays out conceit that we control our own fate.

There's plenty you need to stop doing.