Apart from the UK National Risk Register 2025, which classified future pandemic as a catastrophic risk with the highest likelihood of happening, other reports have often focussed on cyber threats, geopolitical and economic threats, the emergence of AI and other disruptive technologies, and weather and climate threats: often with no mention at all of the threat of future pandemics.
Recent examples include:
- The Protiviti Executive Perspectives on Top Risks report: in a 105 page report this does not mention pandemics as a future risk.
- The World Economic Forum Global Risks Report 2025: pandemic does not make it into the top ten long term risks ranked by severity and the 104 page report makes only passing mention to pandemic risks: in relation to bio-terrorism risks, and in the context of the geopolitical situation making a coordinated global response to a future pandemic more difficult.
- The Allianz Risk Barometer 2025 does not mention pandemic in its 10 most important global risks and is not mentioned as a future threat in the 47 page document.
These aren’t isolated examples. I have been concerned about the lack of attention given to future pandemic threats and have been surprised time after time when reading similar research reports.
The issue most likely lies in human psychology. The vast majority of horizon scanning reports are based on surveys; and these are subject to ‘present bias’.
Human decision-making is often influenced by cognitive biases that can skew the perception of risks and rewards. Among these biases, present bias stands out as a powerful force shaping how we evaluate immediate versus long-term outcomes. Present bias, also known as ‘temporal discounting’, describes the tendency of individuals to overvalue immediate rewards or threats while undervaluing future consequences. This bias has profound implications for risk management decisions across personal, organizational, and societal levels, particularly in the context of long-term threats such as pandemics.
Present bias arises from our innate inclination to prioritise the present over the future. This tendency manifests in behaviours such as choosing immediate gratification over long-term benefits or ignoring long-term risks in favour of addressing short-term challenges.
At its core, present bias reflects our difficulty in accurately weighing the value of delayed outcomes, even when those outcomes may be far more significant in magnitude.
The impact of present bias is particularly evident in how societies and individuals approach the risk of future pandemics. Despite the catastrophic consequences of past pandemics and the clear warnings from public health experts, preparations for future pandemics have historically been insufficient; and there is no sign that this situation is any better today. Present bias plays a significant role in this: pandemics are perceived as distant and hypothetical issues when no immediate outbreak is occurring. The lack of visible, immediate, danger leads to complacency, as the future risks feel abstract compared to more pressing present concerns.
Risk and resilience professionals may be immersed in roles which value horizon scanning and understanding the significance of future threats, but if the pandemic threat is anything to go by, we are not immune from present bias. There is often a threat ‘du jour’ highlighted in reports, in the media, and presented at conferences and events: and there is subsequent professional and budgetary pressure to respond to these. Add this to the inherent present bias issue and you can see how a whole profession can become skewed in its thinking.
The author
David Honour is editor of Resilience Forward.
