Article - study on how parents evaluate risk

[Bluegoat]

Because I presume there is very little I can do about the chance of a healthy child having a heart attack. If something ever does go wrong I want to know I've done whatever is in my power to prevent it. Yes this has led to a certain level of anxiety unfortunately. Or maybe is fed by anxiety idk.

 

Is that really the only reason you don't worry about it?  Because it is just something that almost certainly won't happen to your child.  Worrying about things so unlikely seems like an almost clinical type of anxiety to me, and not something that it is a good idea to indulge if we can help it.

[Bluegoat]

This is kind of true and kind of not. If one child is left for an hour previously and the other child hadn't been the first child actually has a statistically higher chance of something going wrong. Underlying that is the assumption that one child has been left previously? Is that a reasonable presumption to make?

 

No, that is a common statistical myth - people feel it intuitively and it comes into play a lot with behaviors like gambling, but it isn't true.

 

It's like with lottery tickets.  Say a ticket has a 1 in 100 chance of winning.  If you buy one each week, your chance of winning each time is still only 1 in 100.  If one week, your friend who has never bought one decides to, you and she will both have the same chance of winning, 1 in 100.  The fact that you have bought hundreds of them in the past doesn't make it more likely you will win.

 

It's the same with the child that has been left.  Having been left before does not impact the risk of being left on this occasion.

[Ausmumof3]

I thought the monthly hall problem disproved that but I must admit my statistics education only went to high school level so I may misunderstand. It's been a while.

[Crimson Wife]

This is kind of true and kind of not. If one child is left for an hour previously and the other child hadn't been the first child actually has a statistically higher chance of something going wrong. Underlying that is the assumption that one child has been left previously? Is that a reasonable presumption to make?

 

It's not just the number of times left alone but also that the type of mom who would intentionally leave a child alone to meet a lover is likely making all sorts of other bad parenting decisions in other areas. Maybe she isn't conscientious about making sure she has a working smoke & carbon monoxide detector and the kid gets injured or killed as a result of that. Or some other sort of irresponsibility that leads to the child being harmed.

[Epicurean]

I'm dealing with this right now, as we're very likely going to visit Disney World this December. I'm pregnant, and you might not have heard (wink), but there's thing called zika...

 

I've read countless articles about zika--scientific ones, at that. Most people only read headlines. My DH and I think it's low risk to go to Disney for me because:

 

1. We're going in December. The types of mosquitoes that carry zika need temperatures consistently above 77*, so it will be too cold for them in Orlando that time of year. Besides which, the nearest mosquitoes with zika are hundreds of miles away (granted, it's possible the virus may have traveled to Orlando by then, but with the cooler temperatures of autumn around the corner, I doubt it).

 

2. Disney World is like a concentration camp for mosquitoes. It's where mosquitoes go to die. Disney sprays HEAVILY and OFTEN. They even have several flocks of chickens spread out across the property whose sole purpose is to be bit by any mosquitoes they might have missed, and then Disney does weekly blood tests on them to see if they're carrying anything picked up from the mosquitoes. They maintain several bat colonies, also. Disney has a huge impetus to kill mosquitoes (even if they weren't carrying disease, tourists who get bit by mosquitoes are unhappy tourists and may not make a return trip).

 

3. We'll be wearing bug spray and my clothes will be treated with permethrin (heavy duty stuff that hunters use). Even though I seriously doubt it's necessary for the above reasons.

 

4. You think it's risky to go to Orlando, in the winter, at what's probably the most heavily sprayed location in the US? Only 40 something people have even contracted Zika locally. I am more likely to be hit by lightning.

 

5. While we're talking about risk, the ABSOLUTELY MOST RISKY thing a pregnant woman can do is get in a car. Car accidents kill thousands of women every year, and cause the miscarriages/stillbirths of countless fetuses. Sure, you can't avoid getting into the car to go to your OB appointment or get groceries, but all pregnant women go on non-essential car trips. It happens all the time. We don't think twice about it, even though it is dangerous if you are thinking in terms of what is statistically likely to kill you or your baby. I'm not saying pregnant women shouldn't get in cars...I'm saying that if you're going to weigh the risk of getting zika, you have to compare it to other risks to your fetus, and realize that it's being blown out of proportion.

 

End of power point presentation. I doubt any of these points will sway family and friends when we tell them the news.

Edited August 27, 2016 by Epicurean

[Ausmumof3]

No, that is a common statistical myth - people feel it intuitively and it comes into play a lot with behaviors like gambling, but it isn't true.

 

It's like with lottery tickets. Say a ticket has a 1 in 100 chance of winning. If you buy one each week, your chance of winning each time is still only 1 in 100. If one week, your friend who has never bought one decides to, you and she will both have the same chance of winning, 1 in 100. The fact that you have bought hundreds of them in the past doesn't make it more likely you will win.

 

It's the same with the child that has been left. Having been left before does not impact the risk of being left on this occasion.

Actually never mind. The overall statistical risk to the person increases over a life time but the individual risk for that specific incident is no higher. I thought you were saying the first not the second statement. Edited August 27, 2016 by Ausmumof3

[Crimson Wife]

Honestly, I'd personally be much more concerned about health risks to the baby from the chemicals used in the bug sprays than from Zika. I read an article that said researchers at the Pasteur Institute found that only 1% of pregnant women who actually contract Zika will have a baby with birth defects. Obviously it's very tragic for that 1% but the risks have been very much overhyped by the media.

[Epicurean]

Honestly, I'd personally be much more concerned about health risks to the baby from the chemicals used in the bug sprays than from Zika. I read an article that said researchers at the Pasteur Institute found that only 1% of pregnant women who actually contract Zika will have a baby with birth defects. Obviously it's very tragic for that 1% but the risks have been very much overhyped by the media.

 

I've read about the risks of malathion (the most commonly used spray used in parks and cities) and in the studies that have been done so far, there has been no connection with it and miscarriage or birth defects. I think the most thorough study of it was done in California, I'll have to look it up if you're interested.

 

Thanks for pointing out the low number of births that end with microcephaly. I didn't mention that because the article I had read about it cautioned that not enough research had been done to give a definite estimate, but the article you linked makes a compelling case.