Okay, the situation is a little clearer. ?However, ?I still have more questions than answers:
1]"government funded plot" -- do you mean to say the contagion was released as a premeditated conspiracy? ?Or was it an accident, an experimental program that ran amuck? ? ?If the former, why would the U.S. government -- any government other than North Korea -- intentionally unleash a contagion on the world?
2] I fail to see a sufficient dramatic congruency between the protagonist and the problem. ?By way of clarification through contrast: what if the protagonist were a biologist, a virologist? ?He would have more expertise than a mere investment banker to know how potentially dangerous the program was. ?His premonition is "better qualified", believable. ?He would have far more justification to feel guilty because he really knows better. ?He might have been directly involved in the program. ?Hence, not only more knowledgeable to speak out, but also in closer proximity and involvement in the program to try to stop it.
But an investment banker? ??He's a character out of his depth, his field of expertise. I would have no expectation that he would comprehend the full gravity of the program. ?And if you expect an audience to think otherwise, then you've got to expend ?dialogue to explain to the audience how he came to know about the program in the 1st place, how he knows enough about the biology to be so concerned. ?Whereas if he's a biologist or virologist working on the program -- all that is explained by his job title.
3] The rule of thumb is that a logline should explicitly state an objective goal, but the subjective need is only implied (usually by the character flaw). ?So it might be better to imply the subjective problem by means a statement of his character flaw -- "a guilt-ridden biologist must survive..."
4] If indeed he has a deserved burden of guilt to bear for the epidemic, then the story needs to give the protagonist an opportunity to not just save his own life but redeem himself by saving the lives of others. ?(Unless ?you are proposing a tragedy with no salutary, redemptive denouement for the protagonist.) ?Which a virologist might be able to do. ?But an investment banker? ?What can he do besides wallow in guilt, save his own life while the world goes to hell in a viral holocaust.
So shouldn't his objective goal be to atone for his complicity by saving mankind -- not just himself?
fwiw