Coronavirus math
Quote: michael99000
We should all be willing to sacrifice a loved one or two before another Denny’s has to close its doors
People die. It happens. We cannot destroy an economy because some people are afraid of a virus that people have a 199/200 chance of surviving.
Quote: AZDuffman
The majority of the country is ready to open. Get it reopened. And with no silly mask requirements.
Said the John to the whore: "Do I have to wear one of those silly condoms?"
(Not suggesting AZ is a John specifically in case that was not clear)
That's not funny.
Quote: darkozSaid the John to the whore: "Do I have to wear one of those silly condoms?"
(Not suggesting AZ is a John specifically in case that was not clear)
You are speaking like someone who is not watching everything they built bankrupted by this virus. If people want to stay home they are free to do so.
Quote: AZDuffmanYou are speaking like someone who is not watching everything they built bankrupted by this virus. If people want to stay home they are free to do so.
I'm not raising the stay at home issue.
I'm curious why you are apparently against wearing masks as well?
What economic harm can come from everyone wearing masks
I suggest you even invest in a PPE business. Hell, create some jobs, help the economy.
But in a pandemic, if keeping the economy open is such a percieved necessity, why also fight for being unprotected from the contagion spread?
Please cite a source for that stat. Define numerator and denominator.Quote: AZDuffmanPeople die. It happens. We cannot destroy an economy because some people are afraid of a virus that people have a 199/200 chance of surviving.
Of those infected, what proportion does your source say will die?
Left unchallenged, I'd expect 80% of population to get infected at least once. That seems widely accepted as the threshold where herd immunity makes the virus wane.
From what I'm seeing here, roughly 1 in 8 of those that test positive will die. I acknowledge that most of those infected never get tested. 12.5% of 80% would still be 10% of population. If there is only 10% of infections currently being detected, that's 1% population dead. Deeply skewed towards a certain demographic, of which I'm a member and so is my wife. I anticipate that if I or my wife fall into the 80% that get infected, then at least one of us dies. I don't like those odds. Nothing like 1 in 200 from where I'm looking.
With some better numbers, we could have a stab at proper estimates. Then we might reasonably debate whether x% of population dead and y% with serious long term effects are acceptable.
I do sympathise with those who don't wish to close the economy. With excellent contact tracing, South Korea managed to avoid any lockdown.
Quote: OnceDearPlease cite a source for that stat. Define numerator and denominator.
Of those infected, what proportion does your source say will die?
Left unchallenged, I'd expect 80% of population to get infected at least once. That seems widely accepted as the threshold where herd immunity makes the virus wane.
From what I'm seeing here, roughly 1 in 8 of those that test positive will die. I acknowledge that most of those infected never get tested. 12.5% of 80% would still be 10% of population. If there is only 10% of infections currently being detected, that's 1% population dead. Deeply skewed towards a certain demographic, of which I'm a member and so is my wife. I anticipate that if I or my wife fall into the 80% that get infected, then at least one of us dies. I don't like those odds. Nothing like 1 in 200 from where I'm looking.
It is from most things I have been hearing. And your point is correct.
1. Many people will never know they had it.
2. The deaths are skewed to a few demos.
Lets add in that there is financial incentive to list it as the cause of death. Even if there is more than one cause.
1% of the population dead? That would be 100MM in China alone. We have not seen near that.
Quote: darkozI'm not raising the stay at home issue.
I'm curious why you are apparently against wearing masks as well?
Because they do not really do anything and in fact may be a net negative. Many of the masks I see are they type bank robbers wore in bad westerns or are half falling off or are just some other homemade thing. They are a feel-good thing that those in charge mandate to show they are "doing something."
Quote: AZDuffmanBecause they do not really do anything and in fact may be a net negative. Many of the masks I see are they type bank robbers wore in bad westerns or are half falling off or are just some other homemade thing. They are a feel-good thing that those in charge mandate to show they are "doing something."
So the entire medical community has been wearing masks in hospitals without any actual benefits?
Come on now, I know there are people who are anti-science but even this sounds extreme.
Quote: darkozSo the entire medical community has been wearing masks in hospitals without any actual benefits?
Come on now, I know there are people who are anti-science but even this sounds extreme.
In a hospital you are around people in a weakened condition and a place where there is likely to be contagious people. Home Depot is not that kind of place.
Nobody should stop people from wearing a mask. But in the last week I or people I have known have been in a situation to offer people not to wear them, off the masks came! A few were nurese,
Quote: AZDuffmanIn a hospital you are around people in a weakened condition and a place where there is likely to be contagious people. Home Depot is not that kind of place.
Nobody should stop people from wearing a mask. But in the last week I or people I have known have been in a situation to offer people not to wear them, off the masks came! A few were nurese,
Home Depot during regular conditions
Are you denying there is even a contagious pandemic occurring right now?
Meat packing plants haven't been affected?
Denver's entire mail system isn't shut down due to contagion inside their main office?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/kdvr.com/news/coronavirus/denver-orders-closure-of-usps-facility-that-handles-mail-for-all-of-colorado-wyoming/amp/
Amazon has not shut down entire distribution arms?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/amazon-workers-with-coronavirus-60-minutes-2020-05-10/
Quote: darkozHome Depot during regular conditions
Are you denying there is even a contagious pandemic occurring right now?
Meat packing plants haven't been affected?
Denver's entire mail system isn't shut down due to contagion inside their main office?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/kdvr.com/news/coronavirus/denver-orders-closure-of-usps-facility-that-handles-mail-for-all-of-colorado-wyoming/amp/
Amazon has not shut down entire distribution arms?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/amazon-workers-with-coronavirus-60-minutes-2020-05-10/
There are a few regional areas with outbreaks. The rest of the nation not so much. If you are not a senior citizen your chances of survival are very high.
I am saying it it is time to open up and let people who want to hide at home hide at home. Those of us that want a normal life back let us have it. Quit bankrupting good people over all of this. Quit bringing on a synthetic depression.
Apparently you haven't been to our Home Depots here in Vegas. I'm pretty sure it's spreads throughout the Hispanic community at a much higher rate.Quote: AZDuffmanIn a hospital you are around people in a weakened condition and a place where there is likely to be contagious people. Home Depot is not that kind of place.
Quote: AZDuffmanThere are a few regional areas with outbreaks. The rest of the nation not so much. If you are not a senior citizen your chances of survival are very high.
I am saying it it is time to open up and let people who want to hide at home hide at home. Those of us that want a normal life back let us have it. Quit bankrupting good people over all of this. Quit bringing on a synthetic depression.
But you are no longer arguing just to save the economy
That can be accomplished by reopening SAFELY.
Now you are also advocating no masks should be worn.
It's a protective measure.
I don't have AIDS. That doesn't mean it's safe not to wear a condom. The condom is to protect me from getting it.
So why not wear a mask in public. It's to protect you from getting it.
Even in regionally low infected places it's better an ounce of protection.
Just seems funny how you claimed to be fighting for the low wage workers survival a few pages ago. Now you want no ppe
Quote: darkozBut you are no longer arguing just to save the economy
That can be accomplished by reopening SAFELY.
Now you are also advocating no masks should be worn.
It's a protective measure.
I don't have AIDS. That doesn't mean it's safe not to wear a condom. The condom is to protect me from getting it.
So why not wear a mask in public. It's to protect you from getting it.
Even in regionally low infected places it's better an ounce of protection.
Just seems funny how you claimed to be fighting for the low wage workers survival a few pages ago. Now you want no ppe
I said quite clearly that if you want to wear a mask have at it. Just quit making others do so, And let stores ban masks if they want, in higher crime areas it is a safety concern.
My guess is 80% or so of people will choose not to wear the masks given the chance.
Quote: AZDuffmanI said quite clearly that if you want to wear a mask have at it. Just quit making others do so, And let stores ban masks if they want, in higher crime areas it is a safety concern.
My guess is 80% or so of people will choose not to wear the masks given the chance.
Do you believe stores and business should have the right to deny service and entry to people refusing to wear masks?
Quote: darkozDo you believe stores and business should have the right to deny service and entry to people refusing to wear masks?
They already do.
I would like to see them have "mask days" and "no mask days." See what happens.
Quote: AZDuffmanThey already do.
I would like to see them have "mask days" and "no mask days." See what happens.
They already have had no mask days and they already have seen what has happened.
Google meat packing plants and Coronavirus
Quote: michael99000The problem with your options is the reality will be a much much bigger disparity in the numbers.
A hair salon opened in NC. The stylist experiencing symptoms ignored it, helped 91 customers , and then tested positive.
That’s 91 people within a foot of an infected person for probably 30 minutes each. That’s 91 people who then went home to their parents, spouses, children , roommates , etc after their haircut. Thats 91 people who may have essential jobs and went to work and put their coworkers at risk. And all this happens before they know they were exposed and before they felt symptoms.
So we are talking ONE person who was given permission to open early, and exposed a conservative estimate of 300-400 people to the virus.
Now how many other stories will happen exactly like this across the country. How many waiters and batenders and casino dealers and manicurists will make that same mistake ? How many additional people exposed ?
Now try to tell me the difference between opening now or waiting is 9000 dead vs 10,000 dead.
What makes you think that if we wait a month longer there still won't be the a hairdresser that does THE EXACT SAME THING just a month later? Unless you are saying keep it locked up forever, there will always be infected people at the time of re-opening. Please tell me you understand this, or it isn't worth it for me to respond again.
If you tell me that one extra death is enough to shut down the country then I would be able to understand your stance. If not, selecting the date just changes the number of acceptable deaths.
Quote: darkozThey already have had no mask days and they already have seen what has happened.
Yes, NOTHING.
Quote:Google meat packing plants and Coronavirus
Is a meat packing plant a grocery store? Meat packing plants have a sanitation standard many times that of a grocery store. I worked in grocery years ago and the meat department had the highest sanitation standards in the store by far.
Oh, and they did not need to wear masks.
Quote: AZDuffmanYes, NOTHING.
Is a meat packing plant a grocery store? Meat packing plants have a sanitation standard many times that of a grocery store. I worked in grocery years ago and the meat department had the highest sanitation standards in the store by far.
Oh, and they did not need to wear masks.
Let me see if I understand this. Years before the corona virus, you worked in a grocery store and no one needed masks. Therefore no one needs them now. Is that the gist of it?
Quote: AZDuffmanIt is from most things I have been hearing. ...
1% of the population dead? That would be 100MM in China alone. We have not seen near that.
So your number is plucked from the air, just as mine were. Do you agree that accurate numbers would be desirable or useful?
China Population (LIVE) 1,438,771,853
1% of that 14 Million
Agreed we have not seen that. Nor have we seen much honest reporting of any sort from there.
It would be about 3 Million for the USA, but it's early days.
For the record, I favour MUCH improved testing and contact tracing as the core of a solution.
Social distancing just doesn't seem to be something your society will embrace, because of the structure of your society, same in the UK and Europe for that matter.
Quote: OnceDearSo your number is plucked from the air, just as mine were. Do you agree that accurate numbers would be desirable or useful?
China Population (LIVE) 1,438,771,853
1% of that 14 Million
Agreed we have not seen that. Nor have we seen much honest reporting of any sort from there.
It would be about 3 Million for the USA, but it's early days.
For the record, I favour MUCH improved testing and contact tracing as the core of a solution.
Social distancing just doesn't seem to be something your society will embrace, because of the structure of your society, same in the UK and Europe for that matter.
Most western societies are not going to accept this for much longer. Masks seem to have been worn in Eastern Asian societies for some time now. Even here before the virus you would see Asians wearing them sometimes. Maybe from one of the many former virus scares or maybe it is just so crowded there they see it as a smart thing to do. In the west, not so much.
The models so far have been wrong, wrong, and wrong. At first people accepted "a few weeks" of this. By May 1 it was about 6 weeks and no end in sight. Around then is when I noticed that most people favored opening. Here in PA one poll gave the governor's handling an 11% approval! He now seems to be accelerating some openings probably because he is seeing acts of civil disobedience on the rise. You cannot keep people locked down forever. Not when 98% of them are seeing no local danger.
One thing for sure is the roads are not nearly as empty as they were 4 weeks ago. People are out driving somewhere.
[Ref 1] https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/05/23/early-projections-of-covid-19-in-america-underestimated-its-severity
[Ref 2] https://covid19-projections.com/
Quote: TumblingBonesA recent article in The Economist evaluated the accuracy of the projections made by several COVID-19 models [Ref 1]. The one most often cited by the White House is the IMHE model. As of May 4th, its Mean Absolute Error (MAE) for a 14 day forecast was 7%. For the same period, the model developed by Los Alamos National Lab had 3% MAE. The best model, with a 1% MAE is one developed by a recent MIT graduate, Youyang Gu, working on his own [Ref 2]. It's worth checking out as he gives detailed projections for each country. For the US the predictions are at both the national and state level. I just skimmed a few of the states but (SPOILER ALERT) if I was living in Iowa I would be worried.
[Ref 1] https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/05/23/early-projections-of-covid-19-in-america-underestimated-its-severity
[Ref 2] https://covid19-projections.com/
Thank you! An on topic and informative post that’s not just people spouting politically nonsense.
I've been waiting for someone to do a large patient data analysis to look for any other possible correlations. I mean, they've announced the propensity of a few groups who are susceptible, but I'm disappointed no one has announced any big data mining project. Even if only to announce there are few commonalities.
"Please cite a source for that stat."Quote: OnceDearPlease cite a source for that stat. Define numerator and denominator.
Of those infected, what proportion does your source say will die?
Left unchallenged, I'd expect 80% of population to get infected at least once. That seems widely accepted as the threshold where herd immunity makes the virus wane.
From what I'm seeing here, roughly 1 in 8 of those that test positive will die. I acknowledge that most of those infected never get tested. 12.5% of 80% would still be 10% of population. If there is only 10% of infections currently being detected, that's 1% population dead. Deeply skewed towards a certain demographic, of which I'm a member and so is my wife. I anticipate that if I or my wife fall into the 80% that get infected, then at least one of us dies. I don't like those odds. Nothing like 1 in 200 from where I'm looking.
Quote: MintyThe hardest part about decision-making for this is that there's so much uncertainty. How deadly is it? How contagious? What's the efficacy of masks? We don't really have concrete, consistent answers. Without them, it's easy to make the case experts don't know what they are talking about and we should reopen in a flurry. It's also easy to say that we don't know anything and need more time to observe before taking action. My biggest concern is that if we reopen areas that are seeing a low concentration of cases while keeping the hot spots closed that numbers will pick up more. People travel constantly and it doesn't take much intermingling to hit new areas. A church service, a discrete hairdresser or someone getting a drink at a bar. These people want to go on with their lives as normal, but they aren't consciously thinking about how they'll impact others. For better or worse, the health of the nation is a public matter, not a private one.
That is why it is better to err on the side of caution. A study last week indicated that as many as 35,000 lives were lost by closing a week late. How many will be lost by opening too soon?
In all likelihood, there are at least a million infected people out there with cabin fever just itching to get out and about. Have fun mingling with them.
Let's memorialize the fallen by keeping the liberty for which they fought alive. Or, let's remove that last bit off the national anthem and sit down when we pee.
Quote: billryanThat is why it is better to err on the side of caution. A study last week indicated that as many as 35,000 lives were lost by closing a week late. How many will be lost by opening too soon?
In all likelihood, there are at least a million infected people out there with cabin fever just itching to get out and about. Have fun mingling with them.
Hey, I'm with ya there. I'm personally benefitting from the shutdown, but even if I wasn't, I'd advocate society move forward at a cautious pace. I'm immunocompromised and know people who have been in close contact with people who have been positive, so I'm all for preventative measures and anything that saves lives. Bare minimum is people should go out with masks and avoid larger gatherings. Spacing and handwashing. I saw the headline about the 36k lives and am saddened. There's something about our American pride that makes me think this will last longer than it has to. What people don't think about is that if they'd just temporarily stay in and follow the experts advice they'd have less time they'd be asked to stay in for.
Happy to. Mostly based on UK estimates, but go to your own sources for the USQuote: SanchoPanza"Please cite a source for that stat."
For the 80% herd immununity stat.
https://www.jhsph.edu/covid-19/articles/achieving-herd-immunity-with-covid19.html
For Count of deaths and confirmed cases
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html
For the 1 in 8 deaths per confirmed case, I was looking at the UK where the ratio is 36875/260916 which is closer to 1/7 or 14%
We could do it for the global numbers. 345223/5421679 which gives us 6.4% But there are some unreliable countries reporting.
The 10% test penetration rate was my own interpretation of news items, but I now cite this and come up with 7.7%.
UK government estimates that 5% of the population have been infected
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-study-says-one-in-six-have-had-covid-19-in-london-one-in-20-across-uk-11992393
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-information-for-the-public
5% of UK population is 3,400,000 estimated to have been infected
Number of confirmed as having been infected =260,916
(confirmed infected/estimated infected) = 260,916/3,400,000 = 7.7% ( not 10 as I'd previously plucked from the ether )
Quote: Applying my back of the envelope numbers again.
From what I'm seeing here, roughly 1 in 7 = 14% of those that test positive will die. I acknowledge that most of those infected never get tested. 14% of 80% would still be 11% of population. If there is only 7.7% of infections currently being detected, that's 0.85% population dead. Deeply skewed towards a certain demographic, of which I'm a member and so is my wife. I anticipate that if I or my wife fall into the 80% that get infected, then at least one of us dies. I don't like those odds. Nothing like 1 in 200 from where I'm looking.
It's easy to cherry pick stats, and our multitude of sources are pretty poor. That's why i hope we can get more accurate numbers with which to make decisions. My decision is made based on a professional medical judgement of my own families status. For me, it's a no-brainer. Do your own maths. YMMV.
Quote: billryanThat is why it is better to err on the side of caution. A study last week indicated that as many as 35,000 lives were lost by closing a week late. How many will be lost by opening too soon?
In all likelihood, there are at least a million infected people out there with cabin fever just itching to get out and about. Have fun mingling with them.
That sounds like more of a "guess" than a study. Just something made to cause alarmism and get certain people to beg to be locked down even longer. In the first days you did not even hear of many people infected or dying.
I intend to have fun mingling. Sitting down at a restaurant. Getting my hair cut. Grocery shopping with no mask. Just normal life.
As a side note my realtor said things are busy lately with the virus. Looking at an investment property tomorrow. Had to sign a paper promising to sanitize doorknobs and things. Weird but people I guess want to have a normal life and looking at houses is normal.
Quote: AZDuffman
In the first days you did not even hear of many people infected or dying.
After six tries I just realized it's pointless to comment on that
Quote: RogerKintLet's err on the side of caution by letting freedom ring.
Let's memorialize the fallen by keeping the liberty for which they fought alive. Or, let's remove that last bit off the national anthem and sit down when we pee.
You do realize half the population already does that, right?
Seems that the majority of people think the main purpose of wearing a mask is to protect yourself from the virus. IT'S NOT.
The main purpose is to protect the OTHERS. Medical masks and masks of lower level of protection such as textile masks are intended to (mainly) protect the environment you inhabit and the people you meet from your own droplets spreading.
I protect you and you protect me. By wearing a mask. That's the whole point.
The most basic Textile masks do block aerosols from your mouth from 10% up to 90% depending on the size of the droplets. I can't be bothered to look again and find the study that proves those percentages but it's out there on the web. That is way better than wearing no mask and is one of the main reasons masks should be worn out of societal awareness in these times.
Quote: AZDuffman
I intend to have fun mingling. Sitting down at a restaurant. Getting my hair cut. Grocery shopping with no mask. Just normal life.
But previously you've poo poo'd vaccine use. So are you more afraid of vaccines than this virus, or do you only want to take a vaccine if it's free?
Quote: rxwineBut previously you've poo poo'd vaccine use. So are you more afraid of vaccines than this virus, or do you only want to take a vaccine if it's free?
I do not want it until it is proven. If even then.
Quote: AZDuffmanI do not want it until it is proven. If even then.
So no masks,
No vaccines,
No quarantine.
Let me guess. You don't wear seatbelts either?
Quote: darkozSo no masks,
No vaccines,
No quarantine.
Let me guess. You don't wear seatbelts either?
I wear seatbelts. They actually make sense.
0.00027% of the population has died of the virus. Without considering the number inflated, how many years would one live with a 0.00027% chance of dying from an event?
MATH ANSWERS ONLY, PLEASE!
Quote: AZDuffmanCALL TO MATH GUYS HERE.
0.00027% of the population has died of the virus. Without considering the number inflated, how many years would one live with a 0.00027% chance of dying from an event?
MATH ANSWERS ONLY, PLEASE!
We are talking three months not a lifetime.
The virus is still killing so not sure what your point is. Two years from now if this has killed a million people are you going to be asking similar questions
It is most likely the reason it has only killed .00027% is BECAUSE of quarantine so again your question is meaningless without factoring in final mortality rates and probability without quarantine
And I can answer if I choose with or without math
Quote: darkozWe are talking three months not a lifetime.
The virus is still killing so not sure what your point is. Two years from now if this has killed a million people are you going to be asking similar questions
It is most likely the reason it has only killed .00027% is BECAUSE of quarantine so again your question is meaningless without factoring in final mortality rates and probability without quarantine
And I can answer if I choose with or without math
Please do the math over 3 months if you like. I am interested in the math, not redundant commentary.
Quote: AZDuffmanPlease do the math over 3 months if you like. I am interested in the math, not redundant commentary.
So the question you are asking is:
Within a three month period is there a greater than .00027% chance of dying from the total sum of all other possible causes of death?
Quote: darkozSo the question you are asking is:
Within a three month period is there a greater than .00027% chance of dying from the total sum of all other possible causes of death?
No. I am asking if there is a 0.0027% chance of something happening in three months, how many months until you had even a 50/50 chance of it happening.
For an example, people say how many "children are snatched" each year. But the average child would wait 1,000 years to be randomly snatched by a stranger.
Quote: AZDuffmanNo. I am asking if there is a 0.0027% chance of something happening in three months, how many months until you had even a 50/50 chance of it happening.
For an example, people say how many "children are snatched" each year. But the average child would wait 1,000 years to be randomly snatched by a stranger.
I know you said no commentary but your example would be one for quarantine, not against!
Example
AZ says children are snatched every year but the average child would wait 1,000 years to be randomly snatched.
Most parents will respond they are not risking their children well being even if that statement is true.
That sounds like an argument for quarantine. Not to take the risk NOT BECAUSE THE ODDS ARE SMALL BUT BECAUSE THE OUTCOME FOR THOSE AFFECTED IS TOK GREAT TO TAKE ANY RISK!
Quote: darkozI know you said no commentary but your example would be one for quarantine, not against!
Example
AZ says children are snatched every year but the average child would wait 1,000 years to be randomly snatched.
Most parents will respond they are not risking their children well being even if that statement is true.
That sounds like an argument for quarantine. Not to take the risk NOT BECAUSE THE ODDS ARE SMALL BUT BECAUSE THE OUTCOME FOR THOSE AFFECTED IS TOK GREAT TO TAKE ANY RISK!
No, my statement is saying look at quarantine how an AP would look at a game. What are the odds of it happening? What are the odds of total wipeout? What is the risk/reward?
You seem to have decided that there is no level of risk you will accept no mater how small. Fine, stay home. Most of the population is seeing that the risk is very, very low and want to go on with life. Let them.
As to the kids, I heard about that number from a woman who lets her kids "free range" because there is essentially no "snatch" risk unless you are involved in a divorce. It is just using numbers and common sense.
Still requesting someone who knows do the math.
Quote: AZDuffmanNo, my statement is saying look at quarantine how an AP would look at a game. What are the odds of it happening? What are the odds of total wipeout? What is the risk/reward?
You seem to have decided that there is no level of risk you will accept no mater how small. Fine, stay home. Most of the population is seeing that the risk is very, very low and want to go on with life. Let them.
As to the kids, I heard about that number from a woman who lets her kids "free range" because there is essentially no "snatch" risk unless you are involved in a divorce. It is just using numbers and common sense.
Still requesting someone who knows do the math.
I think the average American has certain ideas about the parenting skills of that woman
Quote: darkozI think the average American has certain ideas about the parenting skills of that woman
Helicopter parents will hate her. People brought up pre-1990s will more like her. Since then we have raised a generation afraid of their own shadow with many unable to do the basic functions of life (e.g.: check how many people have no idea how to change a tire.)
If I had any desire to have kids I would want to raise them like her. Hard part is too many busybodies will call the cops it you even let the kids play in the yard alone these days.
Quote: AZDuffmanHelicopter parents will hate her. People brought up pre-1990s will more like her. Since then we have raised a generation afraid of their own shadow with many unable to do the basic functions of life (e.g.: check how many people have no idea how to change a tire.)
If I had any desire to have kids I would want to raise them like her. Hard part is too many busybodies will call the cops it you even let the kids play in the yard alone these days.
Because the pain of losing your kid is more than most parents want to deal with regardless of 1000:1 odds.
And if that woman you mentioned happens to be among the 1/1000 who does lose her kid what consolation that the odds were in her favor.
"But officer. I wasn't watching my kids because the odds were in my favor!"
