I find that low level anxiety has helped me to be prepared for the pandemic. I always worry about "what if", and that means that the possibility of (say) being without an income is already accounted for in my mind.

I don't have kids, but I've always worried. How the hell can you afford them? Have plans for them all the time? Never be able to leave the house without them, etc etc etc. Whereas some folks go into things just knowing "it will work" or "they'll find a way". I've watched friends and relatives raise kids; they somehow always manage to find a sitter, or the grandparents step in, or whatever. There are daycare options, schools, etc (in normal times). These are things I don't account for. When I think of having kids I think of being 100% responsible for them all the time, so the actual situation in the pandemic more closely matches my fears than it matches the "old reality".

I think of it a lot like planning for retirement and not expecting social security, or a pension, or an inheritance. Planning for the worst case scenario, I guess, but that "worst case" always seems like reality -- and them I'm pleasantly surprised.

> in my opinion one shouldn't have kids unless they have the means to dedicate sufficient time and attention to them.

People that had sufficient time to dedicate to their children prior to the pandemic no longer do. It's not reasonable to suggest that all prospective parents should have forseen Covid-19.

You missed my point. Putting children in childcare is not 'having time for them' before the pandemic. They didn't have the time required even before the pandemic, it's just that there was a way to cover up for that lack of time before.

I'm pretty sure a kid only interacting with their parents for their whole childhood is a good way to get some really messed up kids. One of the things I've noticed really heavily during this pandemic is how much kids miss out from school and social interaction. Childcare isn't just "store children until I get off work", it's engagement. It's that child getting a variety of structured and unstructured time with educators and other kids.

I could have all of the free time in the world, and childcare would still be better for the kid than entirely time at home.

> I'm pretty sure a kid only interacting with their parents for their whole childhood is a good way to get some really messed up kids.

That is not an argument I am making. That is a good way to beat a strawman.

My point is not that they shouldn't be in childcare at all, but that society should support such economic conditions that parents are allowed to spend more time with their kids without having to compromise their economic prospects and so that when they cannot send their children to childcare, say because of a pandemic, it is only a minor inconvenience, rather than a significant burden.

> Childcare isn't just "store children until I get off work", it's engagement. It's that child getting a variety of structured and unstructured time with educators and other kids.

That's the ideal. When you're well educated, have the means to pick up the best childcare for you kid you can find, have done the research, but there's lots of families for whom, yes, childcare is precisely just "store children until I get off work", not out of malice, but because their economic situation hardly allows them to think about it much.

How is this different from buying farm-grown produce at the grocery store rather than raising it in a garden?

I mean, you can, but I don't buy an unsupported argument that says that everyone "should" do it that way.

> How is this different from buying farm-grown produce at the grocery store rather than raising it in a garden?

It's different in that you're not directly affecting the well being of people dependent on you by making that choice, apart of course from them being living beings.

> don't buy an unsupported argument that says that everyone "should" do it that way

Am not saying what anyone should be doing, you do you, just that I think many parents don't realize how much responsibility is it to have children and even if they do, the current way society is set up doesn't allow them to do their best, in most cases.

> It's different in that you're not directly affecting the well being of people dependent on you by making that choice, apart of course from them being living beings.

Can I infer that you think constant engagement with parents produces the best outcomes for children? Why do you think that?

That would indeed not be the correct inference to make, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23969103

> society should support such economic conditions that parents are allowed to spend more time with their kids [...]

I totally agree. But I'm not sure how you can use that to support your original statement.

> one shouldn't have kids unless they have the means to dedicate sufficient time and attention to them.

Do believe that no one in a deficient society should have kids whatsoever?

Parents are spending more time with their kids today than was common in the past. There are huge economic/social upsides to having grandparents or schools cover more time.

> Parents are spending more time with their kids today than was common in the past.

And? How do we know it's enough? Based on the number of unhappy, abusive households, certainly doesn't seem so.

My point is that parents should have the economic means to spend more time with their children if required, such as during a pandemic, while facing minimum stress and economic disruption.

When parents have to work full time and often barely be able to take care of their children, it leads to stress at home and directly impact the child.

Maybe working 40+ hours a week isn't a good deal anymore?

Has the number of "unhappy, abusive households" increased along with the rise of dual-income families? That's what you'd expect, right?

It's all very well realising this in a major unforeseeable disaster, but it doesn't put the egg back in the ovary 6 years after the fact.

Some people prefer some unhappiness over death. It's a rational choice.