The 1% doctrine
There is some logic to the idea that it is better to overreact to a situation than to underreact. However, overreaction is not an incontestable virtue per se. Action often feels better than passivity but that misses the point; if you're trying to solve my problem then what I need is an appropriate response. There can be as much downside in doing too much as too little.
Much of the world is wired to overreaction. US tort law is an obvious driver here. American politics has long been skewed by lawyers and their lobbyists forcing the view that overreaction is a necessary virtue on the commercial culture of that country (and thence the world). I once sat in a meeting in a US corporate HQ where the in-house lawyer demanded that the company avoid recommending a specific course of action to a customer (aka 'sales') as that amounted to exposure to law suits. The VP of Sales blithely responded that if that were the case then 900 people just lost their jobs.
The most destructive iteration of this was Dick Cheney's 1% Doctrine that justified US adventurism in the Middle East because a threat to American lives assessed at a liklihood of 1% was to be treated with the same seriousness of a 99% threat. This flawed logic led to the Iraq War amongst other policy disasters.
Risk should be avoided but not at any cost.