[DoreenMichele]

None of your points in any way justifies suggesting one is living in a bubble if they choose to limit their exposure to large groups as a form of germ control. I don't live in a bubble. I do avoid large crowds, among other things.

I see zero reason to suggest that trying to keep small kids home and out if public daycare somehow us weird, aberrant, helicopter parenting. Small kids being at home with family was the norm for most of human history.

Tossing in stats in how bad life was for peasants isn't genuinely a rebuttal. It is, at best, smoke and mirrors to deflect the point.

[jacobolus]

You can’t talk about the “default norm for human life” without acknowledging that infant mortality is lower in current developed countries than it has ever been anywhere in the history of the world, is my point.

Keep kids home for the first 5 years and don’t let them play with other kids if you want, but I haven’t ever seen careful research showing that e.g. preschool or playground time leads to widespread permanent health problems, either for the kids at the time or later in their lives. I admit I have never tried to research this question, so it’s possible it has been studied.

[DoreenMichele]

You probably also have not seen careful research proving that putting kids in daycare at an early age is better for their health, both physically and socially. This in no way prevents you from maligning the other choice as living in a bubble.

Basically you are speaking from prejudice while acting like it is science. You only want scientific proof for things you disagree with, not for your personal preferences.

[jacobolus]

Here’s an example:

> The presence of one or more older siblings at home protected against the development of asthma (adjusted relative risk for each additional older sibling, 0.8; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.7 to 1.0; P=0.04), as did attendance at day care during the first six months of life (adjusted relative risk, 0.4; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.2 to 1.0; P=0.04). Children with more exposure to other children at home or at day care were more likely to have frequent wheezing at the age of 2 years than children with little or no exposure (adjusted relative risk, 1.4; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.1 to 1.8; P=0.01) but were less likely to have frequent wheezing from the age of 6 (adjusted relative risk, 0.8; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.6 to 1.0; P=0.03) through the age of 13 (adjusted relative risk, 0.3; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.2 to 0.5; P<0.001).

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200008243430803

[DoreenMichele]

Correlation does not prove causation.

Other possible explanations include: You need a certain baseline of health for both parents to successfully pursue careers. Older siblings actively help care for younger siblings. Wealthier families are likely to be generally better educated and better cared for.

Your position was openly hostile from the start. You posit that I am talking about a hermetically sealed bubble and not allowing children to have any contact whatsoever with anyone but the parents. It is hyperbolic and not a good faith engagement. Defending myself against this de facto attack forces me to sound more and more like the extremist nutcase you intentionally painted me as.

I don't plan to engage further. This is not a constructive discussion.

[jacobolus]

From my perspective it’s somewhat the opposite. I’ve tried to be calm and measured and friendly while you (a) assumed I was trying to attack you (I have no idea why), (b) assumed I have a strongly held opposition to the general idea of kids staying at home (I am not planning to keep my kids at home – I would rather have them out exploring the city – but am not going to judge other parents for whatever beliefs/practices they might have; there are many worse things parents could do to their children than stay home with them for the first 8 years or whatever), (c) assumed I am advocating for public daycare as the best place for very small children, (d) put various hyperbolic words in my mouth.

“Hermetically sealed bubble” was a bit of an extreme description of your (largely unspecified) alternative to sending kids out into public, but personally I feel there are many good reasons to send kids out to e.g. the park, the grocery store, the street, the bus, the library, later to occasional organized classes, etc. (e.g. so they can learn many skills including socializing with peers and the community at large) without all that much evidence of significant risks. Small children living among communities of humans pretty much inevitably get sick at least several times per year, even in relatively small and isolated agrarian societies. By most objective measures (and especially if we disregard effects from terrible diet and sitting staring at screens a whole lot) children today are incredibly safe and healthy compared to past children.

I agree it hasn’t been especially constructive, but I’m not quite sure why you were and are so wound up and negative about the conversation here.

[DoreenMichele]

You started with:

kids who live in a hermetically sealed bubble, never share toys, and only ever interact with a couple of adults.

You now assume that I am suggesting kids never go to a park or grocery store etc. I see no means to find common ground here. Your assumptions about me are so extreme that it is impossible to engage you effectively. And there is zero reason for you to assume I am talking about such an extremely isolating lifestyle choice.

I go to public places, usually daily. I am not a hermit. I cannot fathom where you are getting this from.