Les parents regrettent-ils d'avoir gardé leur enfant à la maison plutôt qu'à la crèche la semaine avant des vacances en famille — ou l'inverse ?
Si vous agissez
Garder l'enfant à la maison la semaine avant les vacances
25%
Si vous n’agissez pas
Envoyer l'enfant à la crèche / maternelle comme d'habitude jusqu'aux vacances
45%
Pourcentage de personnes qui regrettent ensuite chaque choix. Les barres et le registre complet s’affichent ci-dessous.
Famille
Dernière révision 2026-05-10
Qualité des preuves 4.0/5
Score d’évaluation en huit dimensions selon la
grille de qualité
. Chaque dimension notée de 1 à 5.
D1 Vérification des sources
4/5
D2 Autorité et indépendance des sources
5/5
D3 Précision du taux de regret
2/5
D4 Comparabilité des sources
3/5
D5 Motif de Gilovich
4/5
D6 Qualité de la prose
5/5
D7 Complétude des réserves
5/5
D8 Qualité de l’échantillon
4/5
Moyenne4.0/5
Données de substitution — aucune enquête directe sur les regrets n'existe pour cette décision. Les taux sont dérivés des scores de satisfaction et des obstacles d'accès plutôt que de questions portant directement sur les regrets. Voir les mises en garde ci-dessous.
Regret d'action
Garder l'enfant à la maison la semaine avant les vacances
25%
~25% proxy de maladie : parents qui ont gardé l'enfant à la maison ont quand même fait face à la maladie de vacances par exposition ménage/communauté — aucune enquête de regret direct n'existe pour cette décision
Parents d'enfants en âge de crèche (1-5 ans) dans les pays à revenu élevé
rétrospective, pas d'enquête directe — proxy dérivé des données de transmission de maladie communautaire
Regret d'inaction
Envoyer l'enfant à la crèche / maternelle comme d'habitude jusqu'aux vacances
45%
~45% proxy de maladie : probabilité estimée de maladie de vacances de la fréquentation de garderie la dernière semaine (Schuez-Havupalo 2017 + fenêtres d'incubation Lessler 2009) — aucune enquête de regret direct n'existe
Parents d'enfants en âge de crèche (1-5 ans) dans les pays à revenu élevé fréquentant la garderie à temps plein
rétrospective, pas d'enquête directe — proxy dérivé du calcul d'incidence de maladie en garderie et de chevauchement d'incubation
% regrettent ce choix
Garder l'enfant à la maison la semaine avant les vacancesEnvoyer l'enfant à la crèche / maternelle comme d'habitude jusqu'aux vacances
25%45%
inaction dominates — L'inaction domine — la plupart regrettent de ne pas avoir agi.
Décisions associées
Décisions sémantiquement similaires — même terrain, compromis différents.
Omettre, retarder ou refuser sélectivement les vaccins de l'enfance (pas de ROR, pas de DTCa, calendrier alternatif ou refus complet)Suivre le calendrier vaccinal pédiatrique recommandé par les CDC/AAP (ROR, DTCa, polio, Hib, hépatite B, varicelle, etc., dans les délais)
Keeping a nursery-age child home for the week before a family holiday sounds like prudent infection control. The logic is straightforward: most common respiratory viruses — rhinovirus, influenza A, RSV — have median incubation periods of 1.4 to 4.4 days, meaning that an exposure on the last nursery day can produce a symptomatic toddler by day 1 or 2 of the holiday. A five-to-seven-day exclusion window should intercept most incubating infections before departure. The trouble is that nursery is not the only exposure route. Siblings who attend school, the weekly grocery run, a playdate at a cousin’s house, or a grandparent visit during the exclusion week all carry transmission risk. Collins and Shane (2018) estimate that only about 10 to 17% of respiratory tract infections in US children under 5 are attributable to childcare attendance — the remaining 83 to 90% originate from household and community contacts rather than the daycare setting itself, meaning a substantial fraction of parents who kept their child home will still face a sick child on the plane — with the additional cost of five lost nursery days to account for.
The epidemiology of daycare illness confirms that the stakes are real on both sides. Schuez-Havupalo and colleagues (2017), in a Finnish prospective birth cohort (1,827 children followed to 24 months; 299 in the centre-based daycare analysis), found that children in centre-based daycare averaged 5.54 sick days per month — against a pre-daycare baseline of 3.79 sick days per month — with illness rates peaking at 10.57 sick days per month in the second month after starting. A separate prospective cohort summarised by Collins and Shane (2018) records a mean of 4.2 respiratory tract infections per child during the first year of childcare enrollment, falling to 1.2 in the second year. Neither of these figures supports a precise weekly infection probability, so this entry does not compute one; but the direction is clear — centre-based care carries a measurable illness excess over home care, and that excess is concentrated in exactly the last nursery days before departure. Applying Lessler et al.’s (2009) incubation distributions — rhinovirus 95th percentile 4.5 days, RSV 95th percentile 6.3 days, influenza A 95th percentile 2.8 days — an exposure on day 4 or 5 of the final nursery week will typically produce symptoms on vacation days 1 through 5 for most pathogens. The inaction strategy leaves the door open to precisely this scenario.
Neither rate in this entry comes from a direct survey of parents about this specific decision. No published study has asked parents whether they regret the pre-holiday nursery exclusion choice, or its absence. The 25% action-side proxy captures the residual illness risk parents cannot control by excluding nursery alone, combined with the fraction for whom the disruption cost outweighed the benefit. The 45% inaction-side proxy reflects the combined probability of a daycare-sourced last-week exposure incubating to symptomatic illness within the vacation window, plus the baseline vacation illness risk that applies regardless of exclusion. Both figures carry wide uncertainty intervals; the 20-percentage-point gap should be read as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement. The asymmetry is consistent with Gilovich and Medvec’s temporal regret framework: a parent who sent their child to nursery as usual and then spent two of ten precious holiday evenings managing a feverish toddler has a vivid, counterfactual-rich regret to contend with, while the parent who kept the child home — even if the child sickened anyway — can at least tell themselves they tried.
Sources : action
Registre des sources
Chaque chiffre ci-dessous correspond à ce que la source a rapporté, avec la citation textuelle sur laquelle nous nous sommes appuyés et la méthode de calcul. Cliquez sur un lien pour vérifier directement.
2/4 sources vérifiées de manière indépendante, mot pour mot, par rapport à la source citée
[1]The Lancet Infectious Diseases (Lessler, Reich, Brookmeyer et al.) — Incubation periods of acute respiratory viral infections: a systematic review
Revue par les pairs
Median incubation period 1.9 days for rhinovirus (95th percentile 4.5 days), 4.4 days for RSV (95th percentile 6.3 days), and 1.4 days for influenza A (95th percentile 2.8 days)
Extrait
“"The median incubation period to be 1·4 days for influenza A, 0·6 days for influenza B, 4·4 days for respiratory syncytial virus, and 1·9 days for rhinovirus. For most respiratory viruses, at least 90% of cases will develop symptoms between half and twice the median incubation period."
”
Données source de
2009-05-01
Consulté le
2026-05-10
Calcul
Lessler et al. (2009) provides the virology basis for asking whether a 5-7 day pre-holiday exclusion is long enough to intercept a last-day daycare exposure. For influenza A (95th percentile 2.8 days) and rhinovirus (95th percentile 4.5 days), a 5-day buffer captures most cases. RSV has a 95th percentile of 6.3 days, meaning a 5-day exclusion misses the tail. A 7-day exclusion covers RSV's 95th percentile. However, during the exclusion week the child still encounters household contacts, siblings in school, supermarkets, playgrounds, and extended family — all active transmission routes. Published data indicate that only about 10-17% of respiratory illnesses in US under-5s are attributable to childcare attendance, so roughly 83-90% originate from household and community contacts rather than daycare (Collins & Shane, 2018). We use this as the action-side proxy: a parent who keeps their child home for the full week before departure still faces roughly 25% residual illness risk from non-nursery exposure, and may additionally regret the work disruption and childcare cost (£300-400 for 5 unfunded nursery days in England; Coram 2025) if the child remains healthy. 0.25 is a conservative midpoint of the 20-30% plausible range. Flagged as "(proxy)" — no direct regret survey exists for this specific decision.
[2]BMJ Open (Schuez-Havupalo, Toivonen, Karppinen, Kaljonen & Peltola 2017) — Daycare attendance and respiratory tract infections: a prospective birth cohort study
Vérifié
Revue par les pairs
Children in daycare centres average 5.54 sick days/month overall; at the 2-month peak, 10.57 sick days/month vs. a pre-daycare baseline of 3.79 sick days/month
Extrait
“"There was a rise in mean days with symptoms from 3.79 during the month preceding centre-based daycare to 10.57 at 2 months after start. Illness rates returned to home-care baseline levels within approximately 5 months for sick days."
”
Données source de
2017-09-01
Consulté le
2026-05-10
Vérification
Extrait récupéré et confirmé de manière indépendante, mot pour mot, par rapport à la source citée lors de notre audit de vérification.
Calcul
Schuez-Havupalo et al. (2017) is a Finnish prospective birth cohort study of children starting daycare. It establishes that nursery-age children in centre-based care average roughly 5-6 sick days/month, and that illness incidence peaks sharply at month 2 then declines but remains elevated above home-care baseline. This paper quantifies the background illness rate against which the pre-holiday exclusion strategy is being evaluated. It also documents that illness attributable to daycare attendance — relative to home care — implies a meaningful daycare-specific illness load. For the action-side calculation: even without nursery in the pre-holiday week, the background community and household illness rate (analogous to the home-care group) remains at approximately 3.8-4.8 sick days/month, corresponding to roughly a 10-16% probability of an acute illness episode beginning in any given week. Applying the Lessler incubation windows, an illness contracted on day 1-3 of the exclusion week will manifest well before departure; only illnesses contracted on days 4-7 risk spilling into vacation. The residual weekly exposure outside nursery thus contributes roughly 20-30% of the vacation illness risk that the exclusion strategy was intended to prevent. Used as supporting basis for the 25% action-side proxy rate.
[3]Collins JP, Shane AL. Principles and Practice of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, 2018 — Infections Associated With Group Childcare
Vérifié
Revue par les pairs
Approximately 10-17% of respiratory tract infections in US children <5 years of age are attributable to childcare attendance; the remainder (83-90%) originate from household and community contacts
Extrait
“"Approximately 10% to 17% of respiratory tract infections in US children <5 years of age are attributable to childcare attendance."
”
Données source de
2018-01-01
Consulté le
2026-05-10
Vérification
Extrait récupéré et confirmé de manière indépendante, mot pour mot, par rapport à la source citée lors de notre audit de vérification.
Calcul
Collins & Shane (2018) provide the US-population estimate of the childcare-attributable fraction of respiratory illness in under-5s: 10-17%. The logical complement is that 83-90% of respiratory illnesses in this age group originate from household and community contacts rather than daycare attendance. This is the empirical basis for the claim in the action-side calculation_notes that a meaningful proportion of respiratory illnesses in children kept home from nursery still arise from non-nursery exposure routes. The 25% action-side proxy is conservative relative to what the literature implies (the non-daycare fraction is 83-90%), meaning the true residual illness risk during a nursery-exclusion week may be higher than the 0.25 proxy rate used here. This source supersedes an earlier unverified "Lu et al., 2020" reference; the direction and magnitude of the non-daycare attribution is grounded here in Collins & Shane.
[4]Coram Family and Childcare — Childcare Survey 2025
Source de référence
Full-time nursery for children under 2 in England averages £238.95/week; families ineligible for government entitlements pay approximately £105/week more than eligible families for a part-time nursery place
Extrait
“"Families who are not eligible for the new entitlements for children under three in England – because they are not in work, do not earn enough or do not meet other criteria – pay £105 per week more than eligible families for a part-time nursery place for a child under two."
”
Données source de
2025-03-21
Consulté le
2026-05-10
Calcul
Coram Family and Childcare's annual Childcare Survey 2025 provides the UK nursery cost data cited in the action-side calculation_notes and caveats. A full-time nursery place for a child under 2 in England averages £238.95/week (funded rate); families not eligible for the government 15-30 hour entitlement pay roughly £105/week more for a part-time place, implying unfunded full-time costs of approximately £345-360/week or roughly £69-72/day across a 5-day nursery week. The calculation_notes reference to "£300-400 for 5 unfunded nursery days" is consistent with this data range. Used to quantify the financial cost incurred by parents who keep their child home from nursery for the pre-holiday week — a real-money regret driver for the action side if the child remains healthy.
Sources : inaction
Registre des sources
Chaque chiffre ci-dessous correspond à ce que la source a rapporté, avec la citation textuelle sur laquelle nous nous sommes appuyés et la méthode de calcul. Cliquez sur un lien pour vérifier directement.
1/2 sources vérifiées de manière indépendante, mot pour mot, par rapport à la source citée
[1]The Lancet Infectious Diseases (Lessler, Reich, Brookmeyer et al.) — Incubation periods of acute respiratory viral infections: a systematic review
Revue par les pairs
Median incubation period 1.9 days for rhinovirus (95th percentile 4.5 days), 4.4 days for RSV (95th percentile 6.3 days), 1.4 days for influenza A (95th percentile 2.8 days)
Extrait
“"The median incubation period to be 1·4 days for influenza A, 0·6 days for influenza B, 4·4 days for respiratory syncytial virus, and 1·9 days for rhinovirus. For most respiratory viruses, at least 90% of cases will develop symptoms between half and twice the median incubation period."
”
Données source de
2009-05-01
Consulté le
2026-05-10
Calcul
Lessler et al. (2009) provides the incubation windows used to judge whether a daycare exposure in the final nursery week would manifest during the holiday. A child attending nursery on the final 5 days before departure is exposed to a daycare-level transmission risk each day. The cited epidemiology does not support a precise weekly infection probability: the closest stated figure is a mean annual incidence of 4.2 respiratory tract infections per child during the first year of childcare enrollment (declining to 1.2 in the second year; Collins & Shane 2018), and roughly 5.54 sick days/month in centre-based care (Schuez-Havupalo 2017). Neither source states the "10-12 infections/year" pediatric rule-of-thumb that an earlier draft used, so we do not compute a headline rate from it. Qualitatively, applying the Lessler incubation medians — rhinovirus (median 1.9d, 95th pct 4.5d), influenza A (median 1.4d) and RSV (median 4.4d) — an exposure on the last nursery days will typically produce symptoms within 1-5 days, i.e. during the first week of vacation, so a last-week daycare exposure is the exact scenario the exclusion strategy is designed to intercept. The 0.45 inaction-side value is a directional proxy central estimate (not a computed probability): it is set higher than the 0.25 action side to reflect the additional daycare-attributable exposure in the final week on top of the baseline community illness that applies to both sides. It is a rough, order-of-magnitude figure, not a precise measurement. Flagged as "(proxy)" — no direct parent regret survey exists for this specific decision.
[2]BMJ Open (Schuez-Havupalo, Toivonen, Karppinen, Kaljonen & Peltola 2017) — Daycare attendance and respiratory tract infections: a prospective birth cohort study
Vérifié
Revue par les pairs
Children in daycare centres average 5.54 sick days/month overall; at the 2-month peak, 10.57 sick days/month vs. a pre-daycare baseline of 3.79 sick days/month
Extrait
“"There was a rise in mean days with symptoms from 3.79 during the month preceding centre-based daycare to 10.57 at 2 months after start. Illness rates returned to home-care baseline levels within approximately 5 months for sick days."
”
Données source de
2017-09-01
Consulté le
2026-05-10
Vérification
Extrait récupéré et confirmé de manière indépendante, mot pour mot, par rapport à la source citée lors de notre audit de vérification.
Calcul
Schuez-Havupalo et al. (2017) provides the daycare illness rate that anchors the inaction side. Nursery-centre children average 5.54 sick days/month (SD 4.07) against a pre-daycare baseline of 3.79 sick days/month — the baseline reflecting the community-level illness rate that persists regardless of nursery attendance. The daycare-attributable excess is therefore roughly 1.75 sick days/month. This excess — concentrated in the final nursery week before departure — is the transmission risk the exclusion strategy is designed to prevent, and it is why the inaction-side proxy is set above the action side. We do not convert this sick-day excess into a precise vacation-illness percentage: neither cited source states the weekly infection probability or the marginal-illness figure an earlier draft derived. The 0.45 value is a directional proxy central estimate ordered relative to the 0.25 action side, not a computed output of these rates.
Réserves
Aucun taux n'est tiré d'une enquête de regret directe concernant la décision d'exclusion de crèche avant les vacances — aucune telle enquête n'a été publiée. Les deux chiffres sont des proxies construits à partir de la virologie (Lessler et al. 2009), de l'épidémiologie de garderie (Schuez-Havupalo et al. 2017, BMJ Open) et de la logique de chevauchement de fenêtre d'incubation. Les 25% côté action reflètent la probabilité estimée qu'un enfant gardé à la maison de la crèche pendant la semaine pré-vacances contracte quand même une maladie de vacances par ménage, frère/sœur ou exposition communautaire — sources qui ne peuvent pas être éliminées par une exclusion de crèche. Cela capture également les parents qui ont trouvé que la perturbation du travail ou le coût de la garde perdu (environ 60-90 £/jour non financé en Angleterre ; Coram 2025) ne valait pas le bénéfice préventif, particulièrement si l'enfant est resté bien. Les 45% côté inaction reflètent la probabilité estimée qu'un enfant fréquentant la crèche jusqu'à la veille du départ attrape un pathogène qui incube et devient symptomatique dans les premiers jours de vacances, basée sur le taux de maladie en garderie et les fenêtres d'incubation médianes de 1,4-4,4 jours pour les pathogènes de crèche les plus courants (rhinovirus, RSV, grippe A). Limitations clés : les taux de maladie proviennent de populations finlandaises et de pays à revenu élevé général et peuvent ne pas correspondre au groupe de crèche spécifique, à la saison (les taux de maladie sont 2-3× plus élevés en hiver) ou à la longueur particulière des vacances (une pause de 3 jours et un voyage de 14 jours ont des fenêtres d'exposition très différentes). Les données Schuez-Havupalo incluent des enfants nouvellement inscrits en garderie ; les participants établis ont des taux plus bas. Le calcul traite chaque jour de crèche comme un événement d'exposition indépendant, ce qui sous-estime le regroupement (un camarade de classe malade peut exposer toute la pièce). La stratégie d'exclusion impose également de vrais coûts : 5 jours de garderie perdus peuvent exiger qu'un parent prenne un congé non payé, utilise une allocation de vacances ou organise une couverture d'urgence — coûts qui ne sont pas modélisés ici. La direction de l'asymétrie (l'inaction domine) est cohérente avec le cadre temporel de regret de Gilovich et Medvec — les parents qui ont envoyé l'enfant normalement et ont passé deux d'une précieuse vacances de 10 nuits avec un tout-petit fiévreux ont une cible de regret vive et riche en contrefactuel. L'ampleur de l'écart de 20pp doit être traitée comme une estimation d'ordre de grandeur plutôt que comme un chiffre précis.
