Why would there be a run on other banks if depositors are confident they'll be protected though?
If depositors could/had to wait years, there wouldn‘t be a need for insurance anymore in this case.
I feel the exact opposite as you. Now that essentially 100% of deposits are guaranteed indefinitely, there is only downside to withdrawing.
that would alone create some outflow even if the reason is not panic
If anything, I think the events of the last few days could reduce it somewhat. Better to have your funds safe earning little in a Big 4 bank than somewhere else with higher rates but now perceived to be risky.
And in SVB's case, a very small amount of withdrawals was enough to trigger insolvency. (As it forced the bank to sell, and thereby mark-to-market it's long-term treasuries.)
JPM has $500B of cash and cash equivalents on their $3T deposit base. Of which only ~$34B is in actual cash. Even JPM would fall (without Fed backstop) if JPM had that much withdrawals as a percentage of deposit.
Almost all of those withdrawals happened after the bank was insolvent.
SVB had to sell all of their available securities to cover day-to-day customer withdrawals (The problem with being the bank of choice for startups is that they aren't making any money, aren't getting any new investments, but are still spending money.)
The bank run started after SVB started dipping into its underwater long-term securities, and borrowing money, and doing emergency fundraising.
A more diversified bank (Like any of the big four) would avoid this problem, because their regular day-to-day activity would be a ~net-zero balance of withdrawals and deposits. SVB was uniquely vulnerable because of its undiversified customer base, where normal customer activity pushed it towards insolvency.