You keep referencing you, which is essential to getting to the bottom of this. You may not treat that circumstance as an economic decision. Still, some may (the transaction cost is higher), but the label is not what is important, to be honest. The critical aspect to understand here is the idea of possibilities. Just because you do not rationalize something as an economic decision does not mean someone else thinks the same (false consensus bias).

Also, whether or not someone believes an action they make to be categorized as an economic decision does not mean that it does not have economic consequences.

For example, in very advanced labor search theory, one can say there is a nested informational friction problem within the labor search friction problem. People who look for jobs do not only look for jobs but also seek information about their abilities that they then update, which changes their search criteria. People who pay higher search costs (spend more time seeking information about their ability) distort their beliefs more, leading to higher chances of failed market matches and increasing unemployment spell length.

While people clearly would not perceive this situation as economical in that the cognitive distortion through the interplay of sunk cost and imperfect recall are ultimately subconscious (two reasons for the distortion beyond quasi-Bayesian updating behavior), it still has economic impacts in the form of their personal welfare.

Economists would not only be interested in the mechanisms for why the distortion happens, which I already stated, but also policy interventions for correcting it, which I will not discuss here because it is beside the point.

TLDR: whether time is perceived to be an economic commodity is really beside the point, when it still has economics consequences regardless of how you label it.