Risk or Uncertainty

I find the supposed difference between these two as used by economists perplexing. Risk appears to be something that can be quantified and therefore the basis for rational calculation, whereas uncertainty means that no calculation is possible and that "anything might happen". So which are we dealing with now when it comes to making judgements about the best economic policies for the government to follow? A recent post on CityWire by a former economist from the Bank of England talks about the risk of current policies putting us into a double dip recession. One might ask how substantial this risk is and what would make it worth taking - what are the risks if we don't follow this path? All of this makes the decisions sound sensible, rational, capable of being defended through open argument etc. We take all sorts of risks every day in normal life, and to do so is perfectly sensible - we have to make decisions in good faith, with access to the best evidence available, and aware of the dangers of getting it wrong. I remember working with the Housing Association world and listening to financial consultants advising us on setting financial policies. They were based on certain assumptions. The rate of interest, rate of inflation, levels of LIBOR over the coming years etc. Then one could calculate what would happen IF...
It seemed a rational way of making decisions -basing the future on what had happened in the past and hoping/assuming that things would remain broadly similar. The problem is that nobody can really know if things are going to remain broadly similar, so the calculations can go badly wrong. One cannot calculate for the unexpected.
This sounds very much like the plea of most mainstream economists after the collapse of 2008. Unexpected and unforeseen events took place that could not be factored in to our equations. Except of course that some other economists did foresee what would happen, did publish their views, and were ignored because it was more comfortable and convenient to do so - until the balloon went up!
Has anything changed as we enter this new phase of the global financial crisis? Policies are being presented to us as if the risks have been calculated and argued through, and there is a consensus that it is riskier NOT to make cuts. But I see little evidence that the counterarguments have been listened to or taken seriously. Where is the public debate using a range of economic commentators which would present the populace with all of the possible scenarios, the arguments from previous experience that would back those up, let alone a consideration of the ethical risks arising from following certain policies? It doesn't exist - a few dissident voices get an airing in the press and on websites, but that is all. Government has made up its mind!
So the language of risk is being employed to cover up the reality that this is an area of great uncertainty where anything could happen, either an economic recovery of some sort or a slide into depression. Is this either a practical or an ethical response to decision making?