“What will be different this summer?” My friend asked this when I expressed my unease about a socially-distanced visit in March. At that time, I believed that while nothing would change logically, the emotional landscape would feel altered. If asked the same question now, I would agree to a socially distanced gathering. The emotional context has shifted.
Perhaps it’s due to our growing understanding of the virus’s transmission, allowing us to better manage the risks involved, despite enduring uncertainties. Perhaps it’s because COVID-19 cases have decreased in my locality, making risk feel more manageable, even though the virus hasn’t disappeared entirely. Or, it might be the change in communication from businesses, transitioning from messages about COVID-19 responses to announcements of reopening plans.
Most likely, however, it’s the recognition that despite early optimism around vaccines, COVID-19 isn’t going away anytime soon. This is a tough reality, but one that many of us are grappling with as states begin to lift restrictions. It forces us to contemplate what “living” means for us individually and collectively, the level of risk we’re willing to accept, and how we can mitigate that risk.
This leads to frequent tough choices: If summer camps open, should we enroll our kids? If schools recommence, will they be safe? Is it prudent to allow our children a social distance bike ride with neighbors? Can we safely hire a babysitter for a few hours a week?
As a single parent overwhelmed by the demands of remote work, homeschooling, and caring for two restless children, these decisions weigh heavily on me. I often find myself fluctuating between feeling safe about a family hike with grandparents, while simultaneously viewing a simple playdate as perilous. Each decision feels monumental; at times, it feels like a choice between merely existing and truly living.
Emily Rivera, an economics professor at Green Valley University, has proposed a risk assessment framework for navigating COVID-19 decisions. This model emphasizes a risk-benefit analysis, acknowledging that there is no universal solution to any dilemma.
Rivera’s Five-Step Framework
Her five-step framework is as follows: (1) define the question, (2) explore risk mitigation strategies, (3) assess risks, (4) weigh benefits, and finally, (5) make a decision.
Defining the question is arguably the most challenging aspect. Rivera notes, “You must start by identifying exactly what you are considering, and equally important, what the alternative is.” For instance, if pondering whether to send a child back to daycare, one must consider the implications of waiting a month, going back in September, or not returning until a vaccine is available. This clarity can illuminate potential gaps in reasoning—like what might realistically change in a month.
Once the question is framed, the next step involves considering risk mitigation: What can be done to minimize potential dangers? We are now more informed about COVID-19 transmission than we were in the early days of the pandemic. We recognize that masks play a vital role, and outdoor activities carry less risk than indoor ones.
Next, we must evaluate the risk for each individual involved. Rivera suggests a formula: “Chance of Infection x Chance of Transmission x Chance of Severe Illness or Death.” While this formula simplifies complex dynamics, it relies on general statistics and can be unsettling, as even low-risk individuals can experience severe effects, while some high-risk individuals remain asymptomatic.
At this juncture, it’s critical to balance the assessed risk against the anticipated benefits. If the risks are low and the potential benefits are high, the decision may become clearer.
The reality is that we will be coexisting with this virus for the foreseeable future, and it’s undeniably frightening. As of now, COVID-19 has taken more than 100,000 lives in the United States alone. Many who recover endure lingering health issues, and new concerns, such as MIS-C—an inflammatory condition affecting children—continue to arise. Nevertheless, strict quarantine measures, particularly for a solo parent like me, are not sustainable. I must take calculated risks for the invaluable benefit of alleviating some of the burdens I’ve carried since early March.
I acknowledge that for some, the risk-benefit analysis will consistently indicate that the dangers outweigh any potential advantages. I also recognize the privilege that allows some of us to choose whether to take risks or not—like having a job that affords the flexibility to homeschool. Utilizing this risk assessment framework is fundamentally personal, yet each of our choices plays an essential role in our collective response to the pandemic. We do not operate in isolation, and this must inform every decision we make.
There’s an abundance of uncertainty surrounding this virus, and information evolves daily. My risk assessments may continue to adapt, reflecting new insights. However, having a structured approach to my decision-making is invaluable as I navigate my path forward.
For additional insights on decision-making during this challenging time, check out more from our other posts at Home Insemination Kit.
Summary
This article explores a rational framework for making decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic. By utilizing a five-step risk assessment system proposed by Emily Rivera, individuals can navigate complex choices involving risk and benefit analysis. The pandemic necessitates a balance between personal safety and the need for social interaction, particularly for parents managing remote work and childcare. The evolving nature of the virus demands adaptability in decision-making processes, highlighting the importance of a structured approach to assess risks and benefits.