Grouping related things together isn't necessarily conflating.

I don't think the article is trying to say "18% of workers have basically lost their jobs!!!", but rather to give a sense of how many people's incomes are impacted.

If they weren't trying to conflate them the headline would have been "Coronavirus: 18% of U.S. workers have reduced our or lost jobs"

Agreed, losing a job is very different than getting hours cut. Both suck, one sucks much much more.

No, they’re talking about just one thing - not receiving pay.

First paragraph (and headline):

> Some 18% of adults reported that they had been laid off or that their work hours had been cut

I think the person you responded to was saying was that both of those things (being laid off and having hours cut) involve not receiving some amount of pay. And that that's the reason they were grouped together.

Basically that it was answering one specific question: How many had pay impacted. But that it doesn't answer these other questions that yes would in fact be very useful, including a breakdown.

Perhaps, but the data is merged and too much information is lost.

Did I prick my finger or lose 4 pints of blood! == Less overtime or fired.

I don't think that's a fair comparison, personally. Getting your hours cut is a big deal and might mean you can't pay your bills.

Like I said, I think it's great to split them out if you can, but let's not minimize actual pain people are going to be going through right now. Especially on a site where the average income is so much higher than most.