Hebben ouders spijt dat ze hun kind thuis hielden van de kinderopvang de week voor een gezinsvakantie — of juist niet?
Als je handelt
Het kind de week voor de vakantie thuishouden van de opvang/kleuterschool
25%
Als je niets doet
Het kind tot aan de vakantie gewoon naar de opvang/kleuterschool sturen
45%
Percentage dat later spijt heeft van elke keuze. De balken en het volledige overzicht staan hieronder.
Familie
Laatst beoordeeld 2026-05-10
Kwaliteit van bewijs 4.0/5
Beoordelingsscore op acht dimensies volgens de
kwaliteitsrubriek
. Elke dimensie krijgt een score van 1 tot 5.
D1 Bronverificatie
4/5
D2 Autoriteit en onafhankelijkheid van bronnen
5/5
D3 Nauwkeurigheid van spijtcijfer
2/5
D4 Vergelijkbaarheid van bronnen
3/5
D5 Gilovich-patroon
4/5
D6 Prozakwaliteit
5/5
D7 Volledigheid van voorbehouden
5/5
D8 Steekproefkwaliteit
4/5
Gemiddelde4.0/5
Proxygegevens — er bestaat geen directe spijtenquête voor deze beslissing. De percentages zijn afgeleid van tevredenheidsscores en toegangsdrempelgegevens in plaats van vragen die direct naar spijt vroegen. Zie opmerkingen hieronder.
Spijt van handelen
Het kind de week voor de vakantie thuishouden van de opvang/kleuterschool
25%
~25% ziekteproxy: ouders die kind thuis hielden ervoeren nog steeds vakantie-ziekte door huishoud/gemeenschap blootstelling — geen directe spijtenquête bestaat voor deze beslissing
Ouders van kinderdagverblijf-leeftijd kinderen (leeftijd 1–5) in hoge-inkomenslanden
retrospectief, geen directe enquête — proxy afgeleid uit gemeenschap ziekte-transmissiedata
Spijt van nalaten
Het kind tot aan de vakantie gewoon naar de opvang/kleuterschool sturen
45%
~45% ziekteproxy: geschatte vakantie-ziekte waarschijnlijkheid uit laatste-week kinderdagverblijf-aanwezigheid (Schuez-Havupalo 2017 + Lessler 2009 incubatie-vensters) — geen directe spijtenquête bestaat
Ouders van kinderdagverblijf-leeftijd kinderen (leeftijd 1–5) in hoge-inkomenslanden die voltijds kinderdagverblijf bezoeken
retrospectief, geen directe enquête — proxy afgeleid uit kinderdagverblijf ziekte-incidentie en incubatie-overlap berekening
% betreurt deze keuze
Het kind de week voor de vakantie thuishouden van de opvang/kleuterschoolHet kind tot aan de vakantie gewoon naar de opvang/kleuterschool sturen
25%45%
inaction dominates — Niets doen domineert — de meesten hebben spijt dat ze niet handelden.
Gerelateerde keuzes
Semantisch vergelijkbare keuzes — zelfde terrein, andere afwegingen.
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.
Bronnen: handelen
Bronnenverantwoording
Elk getal hieronder is wat elke bron rapporteerde, met het letterlijke citaat waarop we ons baseerden en hoe we tot ons cijfer kwamen. Klik op een link om rechtstreeks te verifiëren.
2/4 bronnen onafhankelijk woordelijk geverifieerd tegenover de geciteerde bron
[1]The Lancet Infectious Diseases (Lessler, Reich, Brookmeyer et al.) — Incubation periods of acute respiratory viral infections: a systematic review
Vakgenoten-beoordeeld
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)
Fragment
“"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."
”
Brongegevens van
2009-05-01
Geraadpleegd
2026-05-10
Berekening
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
Geverifieerd
Vakgenoten-beoordeeld
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
Fragment
“"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."
”
Brongegevens van
2017-09-01
Geraadpleegd
2026-05-10
Verificatie
Fragment onafhankelijk opnieuw opgehaald en woord voor woord bevestigd tegenover de geciteerde bron tijdens onze onderbouwingsaudit.
Berekening
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
Geverifieerd
Vakgenoten-beoordeeld
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
Fragment
“"Approximately 10% to 17% of respiratory tract infections in US children <5 years of age are attributable to childcare attendance."
”
Brongegevens van
2018-01-01
Geraadpleegd
2026-05-10
Verificatie
Fragment onafhankelijk opnieuw opgehaald en woord voor woord bevestigd tegenover de geciteerde bron tijdens onze onderbouwingsaudit.
Berekening
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
Gerenommeerde referentie
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
Fragment
“"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."
”
Brongegevens van
2025-03-21
Geraadpleegd
2026-05-10
Berekening
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.
Bronnen: niet handelen
Bronnenverantwoording
Elk getal hieronder is wat elke bron rapporteerde, met het letterlijke citaat waarop we ons baseerden en hoe we tot ons cijfer kwamen. Klik op een link om rechtstreeks te verifiëren.
1/2 bronnen onafhankelijk woordelijk geverifieerd tegenover de geciteerde bron
[1]The Lancet Infectious Diseases (Lessler, Reich, Brookmeyer et al.) — Incubation periods of acute respiratory viral infections: a systematic review
Vakgenoten-beoordeeld
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)
Fragment
“"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."
”
Brongegevens van
2009-05-01
Geraadpleegd
2026-05-10
Berekening
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
Geverifieerd
Vakgenoten-beoordeeld
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
Fragment
“"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."
”
Brongegevens van
2017-09-01
Geraadpleegd
2026-05-10
Verificatie
Fragment onafhankelijk opnieuw opgehaald en woord voor woord bevestigd tegenover de geciteerde bron tijdens onze onderbouwingsaudit.
Berekening
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.
Kanttekeningen
Geen van beide percentages is getrokken uit een directe spijtenquête over de pre-vakantie kinderdagverblijf-uitsluiting beslissing — geen dergelijke enquête is gepubliceerd. Beide cijfers zijn proxies geconstrueerd uit virologie (Lessler et al. 2009), kinderdagverblijf-epidemiologie (Schuez-Havupalo et al. 2017, BMJ Open), en de logica van incubatie-venster overlap. De actie-zijde 25% weerspiegelt de geschatte waarschijnlijkheid dat een kind thuisgehouden van kinderdagverblijf voor de pre-vakantieweek nog steeds een vakantie-ziekte oploopt door huishoud-, broer-of-zus-, of gemeenschapsblootstelling — bronnen die niet kunnen worden geëlimineerd door een kinderdagverblijf-uitsluiting. Het vangt ook ouders die de werkverstoring of verloren kinderopvangkosten (ongeveer £60-90/dag ongefinancierd in Engeland; Coram 2025) niet de preventieve voordeel waard vonden, vooral als het kind goed bleef. De inactie-zijde 45% weerspiegelt de geschatte waarschijnlijkheid dat een kind dat kinderdagverblijf bezoekt tot de dag voor vertrek een pathogeen oppikt dat incubeert en symptomatisch wordt binnen de eerste paar vakantiedagen, gebaseerd op het kinderdagverblijf-ziektepercentage en de 1,4-4,4 dag mediaan incubatie-vensters voor de meest gebruikelijke kinderdagverblijf-pathogenen (rhinovirus, RSV, influenza A). Belangrijke beperkingen: de ziektepercentages komen uit Finse en algemene hoge-inkomensland populaties en komen mogelijk niet overeen met de specifieke kinderdagverblijf-groep, seizoen (ziektepercentages zijn 2-3× hoger in de winter), of de specifieke vakantielengte (een 3-dagse pauze en een 14-dagse reis hebben zeer verschillende blootstellingsvensters). De Schuez-Havupalo data omvat kinderen nieuw ingeschreven in kinderdagverblijf; gevestigde kinderdagverblijf-bezoekers hebben lagere percentages. De berekening behandelt elke kinderdagverblijfdag als een onafhankelijke blootstellingsgebeurtenis, wat clustering ondertelt (één ziek klasgenoot kan de hele kamer blootstellen). De uitsluitingsstrategie legt ook reële kosten op: 5 verloren kinderopvangdagen kunnen vereisen dat een ouder onbetaald verlof neemt, vakantietoeslag gebruikt of noodopvang regelt — kosten die hier niet zijn gemodelleerd. De richting van de asymmetrie (inactie domineert) is consistent met Gilovich en Medvec's temporele spijtraamwerk — ouders die het kind normaal stuurden en twee van een kostbare 10-nachts vakantie doorbrachten met een koortsige peuter hebben een levendig, counterfactual-rijk spijtdoel. De magnitude van de 20pp-kloof moet behandeld worden als een orde-van-grootte schatting in plaats van een precies cijfer.
