Parents are 5X as Worried about Infection and School than Work and Paying Bills

Post by ryanobjc » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 8:37 PM UTC

triceratops wrote: post #93

umvi wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am just so confused why some people are acting like kids are a different species when it comes to covid. Well, it's not that surprising when you have a disease whose harm factor is a function of your age. The vast majority of covid deaths are the elderly. The tiniest minority of covid deaths are young children. Their ability to spread to adults is their biggest risk factor, not the disease itself.

Even if the kids are fine, if both parents get sick at the same time it's going to be hell taking care of the kids. Especially when you can't hire outside help due to social distancing requirements.

Post by Afton » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 8:37 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #100

Eric_WVGG wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is textbook confirmation bias. When you have two seemingly equivalent theories (the threat of C-19 is serious vs overblown), you select the one that is more convenient for your worldview. Mr. and Mrs. Applecart both have full-time jobs and four children; they don't have time to home-school and wouldn't know how if they did. Their lives would be more functional if the threat is overblown, so they believe…

> yes, I know, confirmation bias cuts both ways Indeed. I suspect people who are adamant for more aggressive lockdowns are those who have good WFH options and good job security.

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 8:38 PM UTC

rwcarlsen wrote: post #52

I've personally heard from several tens of parents that they are primarily worried about the economic and social affects of all these so-called safety measures governments and communities are taking. Just because it's easy to measure cases and deaths and hard to measure lost human connection, depression, children being left in environments of neglect, delayed/paused innovation and economic growth, etc. doesn't mean t…

Post by tptacek » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 8:38 PM UTC

renewiltord wrote: post #97

buhhh wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you confusing harm with death rates? It's a novel virus and we still do not know the long term health impacts of it.

Everything novel has this problem, and fortunately our epistemology is up to the task. We set our priors to a weighted linear combination of other similar things and then revise as evidence comes in. For instance, MMR II was approved in 1978. How do we know that people who were given MMR II won't spontaneously die at the age of 60? Or perhaps to bring it closer to another problem, how do we know they won't spontaneou…

Post by Afton » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 8:39 PM UTC

dfxm12 wrote: post #67

sneak wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s impossible to force a parent into the choice between working a life-threatening job interacting with the public or eviction so long as they have a child at home. The parent will not abandon the child home alone to go to work, no matter how big the stick. School being effectively state subsidized working hours daycare, it must resume before low wage workers can once again be coerced back into risking their lives…

It’s impossible to force a parent into the choice between working a life-threatening job interacting with the public or eviction It's a failing of the government that so many Americans have to face this choice.