Any calamity that involves lost lives and newfound fears is certain to cause over-reaction, and three weeks after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, there are plenty of examples.

The other weekend, Boston supposedly was the target of something or other that never happened. So, too, were the major Hollywood studios. More ominously, there are daily rumblings about threats of nerve, biological or even nuclear attack.

Very scary stuff and to some degree unavoidable. In less than a month, we’ve gone from a nation that blithely buried its head in the sand to one that nervously flinches at the slightest pop. At some point, an equilibrium will be reached where we won’t casually dismiss the prospect of terrorism as many of us used to but we also won’t be freaked out upon hearing a police siren. Meantime, we’re stuck with lots of unfiltered information some of it credible, much of it not that keeps getting replayed in the media for no good purpose. Not helping is the uncoordinated efforts of law enforcement that points to a years-long failure of government agencies to effectively work with each other.

Other failures are becoming apparent on the economic side.

The nation is almost certainly in a recession that could easily extend well into next year. That means lost jobs, bankrupt companies and smaller nest eggs. It’s times like these that government is usually called upon to help out. But in the era of less-is-more, lawmakers are not accustomed to writing out big checks in a hurry.

The airlines are finding that out the hard way. Congress agreed to a $5 billion bailout in the face of mounting losses, but nothing in the legislation specified when the checks would be mailed out. That’s a big deal, considering the huge fixed costs that the carriers are stuck with and the limited amount of cash coming in.

At first, the airlines thought they would get at least 80 percent of the money upfront, but when it came time to fill out the applications, some carriers were told it would only be 20 percent. The confusion appears to have been ironed out, but only after intervention by the White House.

What’s troubling is that the government will be called upon to provide more relief in the months to come not only as it relates to the Sept. 11 attacks but to the overall economic climate. So far, there have been some reasonable suggestions: business and individual tax cuts, expansion of unemployment benefits, and a substantial increase in defense spending.

The problem now is two-fold: First, determining how much to do. Certainly, some relief is needed but, rhetoric aside, we are not entering a world war that requires massive amounts of military spending. Nor are we entering a severe recession that requires a massive amount of public aid.

Once the parameters are established, the next step is figuring out who gets what, how soon, and for how long knowing that the various interest groups will be lining up in search of their share, fair or otherwise.

Given the public’s limited expectations from government, this is a tall order. But with any luck, the temptation to overreact will be contained and the federal response will turn out to be just right.